Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
There is electoral fraud but mostly involving postal votes and/or fictitious voters. The specific fraud of personation is vanishingly rare. It is only the latter which the government's photo ID proposal addresses; by coincidence, the one likely to disadvantage people who might vote for Opposition parties (although as @TheScreamingEagles has reported, some Conservative activists are worried it might also impact Tory voters).
How do you know its vanishingly rare if we're not looking for it and have no checks on it and there's a history of it being successfully used within our country?
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
Voter ID Is voter suppression in the sense that it puts obstacles in the way of voting that didn't exist before.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
To those of us that love him, intimately, he is something even simpler. He is nothing less than THE DRAKE. An embodiment of hushed but puissant male sexual prowess. A predator that charms. A scorpion's kiss in the form of Welsh Labour
Does voter fraud happen in the UK: yes. Will voter Id for in person voting stop it to any appreciable degree: no.
Well this is the crux of the issue. Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? I would say absolutely not.
I would rather a few incidents of voter fraud that had no material impact on the election if it meant more people were able to vote overall without incident.
In fact the greatest protection against voter fraud is mass participation.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
So Northern Ireland is NOT a special case?
Don't think that even the late Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley would buy THAT one.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
Voter ID Is voter suppression in the sense that it puts obstacles in the way of voting that didn't exist before.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
Why did the Labour Party introduce Photo ID in Northern Ireland for voting?
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
Voter ID Is voter suppression in the sense that it puts obstacles in the way of voting that didn't exist before.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
Why did the Labour Party introduce Photo ID in Northern Ireland for voting?
I'm not sure why you are making this into a party political thing. I would be against such a thing even if Labour was (or has) proposed it.
To those of us that love him, intimately, he is something even simpler. He is nothing less than THE DRAKE. An embodiment of hushed but puissant male sexual prowess. A predator that charms. A scorpion's kiss in the form of Welsh Labour
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
Voter ID Is voter suppression in the sense that it puts obstacles in the way of voting that didn't exist before.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
Why did the Labour Party introduce Photo ID in Northern Ireland for voting?
Voter ID in Northern Ireland is modern and European. Voter ID in England is nasty and American.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
Voter ID Is voter suppression in the sense that it puts obstacles in the way of voting that didn't exist before.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
Why did the Labour Party introduce Photo ID in Northern Ireland for voting?
I don't know, and I don't see why a rule in one place means it must universal. If anything since the majority of our nations don't have why not have that as the standard.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
So Northern Ireland is NOT a special case?
Don't think that even the late Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley would buy THAT one.
Are people prepared to commit electoral fraud? Yes, there's been multiple cases of it that we know of, some organised, in recent years.
Is personation a viable fraud if left unguarded and unchecked? Yes, there's been cases of it in the past. That's why photo ID was introduced by Labour.
The cases of electoral fraud in GB in recent years have shown that the notion that fraud could only be a Northern Ireland problem are sadly false.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
There is electoral fraud but mostly involving postal votes and/or fictitious voters. The specific fraud of personation is vanishingly rare. It is only the latter which the government's photo ID proposal addresses; by coincidence, the one likely to disadvantage people who might vote for Opposition parties (although as @TheScreamingEagles has reported, some Conservative activists are worried it might also impact Tory voters).
How do you know its vanishingly rare if we're not looking for it and have no checks on it and there's a history of it being successfully used within our country?
Personation will easily be detected when the second voter turns up. If you are told you have already voted, that is a giveaway, whether you are the real or the fake voter.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
Voter ID Is voter suppression in the sense that it puts obstacles in the way of voting that didn't exist before.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
Why did the Labour Party introduce Photo ID in Northern Ireland for voting?
I'm not sure why you are making this into a party political thing. I would be against such a thing even if Labour was (or has) proposed it.
Its not if Labour proposed it. Labour did propose it and make it law. Why?
Because personation is a real problem that can be and has been exploited. At the time it was naively assumed the risk of fraud was an NI-only problem, subsequent cases have shown that to be untrue.
Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale
It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
Eid bah gum!
Doesn't that depend on what's in the gum?
I used to work at a school in East London where the porcine origin of gelatine was an issue. One of my colleagues came up with the idea of an alternative set of jelly sweets called Halalibo.
My girlfriend works in one now, & she’s got tomorrow off as an extra days holiday because no one will turn up
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
There is electoral fraud but mostly involving postal votes and/or fictitious voters. The specific fraud of personation is vanishingly rare. It is only the latter which the government's photo ID proposal addresses; by coincidence, the one likely to disadvantage people who might vote for Opposition parties (although as @TheScreamingEagles has reported, some Conservative activists are worried it might also impact Tory voters).
How do you know its vanishingly rare if we're not looking for it and have no checks on it and there's a history of it being successfully used within our country?
So on the basis we don't know it is happening we must assume it is happening in large enough amounts to warrant additional restrictions? The potential for abuse merits the same response as proven abuse?
It's absurd. I don't even think the principle of requiring some form of ID to vote is inherently wrong, but these arguments to impose it are flimsy as hell.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
There is electoral fraud but mostly involving postal votes and/or fictitious voters. The specific fraud of personation is vanishingly rare. It is only the latter which the government's photo ID proposal addresses; by coincidence, the one likely to disadvantage people who might vote for Opposition parties (although as @TheScreamingEagles has reported, some Conservative activists are worried it might also impact Tory voters).
How do you know its vanishingly rare if we're not looking for it and have no checks on it and there's a history of it being successfully used within our country?
Personation will easily be detected when the second voter turns up. If you are told you have already voted, that is a giveaway, whether you are the real or the fake voter.
Except someone on this site has already said they've turned up to vote and been told they'd already voted once before. That's on a site of political obsessives, who knows how often its happened to other people?
Especially if you target those the marked register have shown are non-voters in the past.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
OK, I disagree re your scaling point, because:
(1) You can't have the same impersonator going back to the same polling station more than - what - twice at absolute maximum. The third time they turn up, the chances of one of the two returning offices saying 'wait, haven't I seen you before?' increases to unacceptable levels for most would be criminals. (And don't forget you'll be going to prison if you're caught.) That really limits the number of fake votes you can cast.
(2) This means that to do it to any scale, you need multiple people willing to go in person and pretend to be someone else. Compare and contrast with postal vote fraud where one 'mastermind' can submit thousands of ballots.
But fundamentally, personation at any meaningful scale will be discovered by one of two things happening:
- Joe Bloggs finds someone has voted in his stead - A constituency has a pattern of DNV-DNV-DNV-V that is out of wack with the country as a whole (and - one would think - also had higher than expected turnout).
My point, though, is that there are ways to eliminate the issue of personation and that do so in a much more equitable manner.
Their default position of being shameless lefty smear merchants probably had something to do with it...
Forensic Sir Keir was all over it at PMQs too, does he have to apologise?
“ Citing correspondence between Dyson and Johnson over tax breaks, Sir Keir told the Commons: “What does the prime minister think is the right thing to do if he receives a text message from a billionaire Conservative supporter asking him to fix tax rules?”
Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale
It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
Eid bah gum!
Doesn't that depend on what's in the gum?
I used to work at a school in East London where the porcine origin of gelatine was an issue. One of my colleagues came up with the idea of an alternative set of jelly sweets called Halalibo.
My girlfriend works in one now, & she’s got tomorrow off as an extra days holiday because no one will turn up
A couple of years ago, Eid was in June on the day of one of the GCSE science exams. Leaving aside that Ramadan sucks when sunrise is super early and sunset is super late, massive respect to the kids who turned up to do an exam that day. They pretty much all did.
(There has to be something interesting about the sociology and geography of when religions fast. In Christendom, Lent falls in the European hungry gap. Ramadan moves round the year, but the geography of sunrise and sunset means that matters less in the Middle East than it does further north.)
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
OK, I disagree re your scaling point, because:
(1) You can't have the same impersonator going back to the same polling station more than - what - twice at absolute maximum. The third time they turn up, the chances of one of the two returning offices saying 'wait, haven't I seen you before?' increases to unacceptable levels for most would be criminals. (And don't forget you'll be going to prison if you're caught.) That really limits the number of fake votes you can cast.
(2) This means that to do it to any scale, you need multiple people willing to go in person and pretend to be someone else. Compare and contrast with postal vote fraud where one 'mastermind' can submit thousands of ballots.
But fundamentally, personation at any meaningful scale will be discovered by one of two things happening:
- Joe Bloggs finds someone has voted in his stead - A constituency has a pattern of DNV-DNV-DNV-V that is out of wack with the country as a whole (and - one would think - also had higher than expected turnout).
My point, though, is that there are ways to eliminate the issue of personation and that do so in a much more equitable manner.
(1) Why would you keep turning up to the same polling station? There'd dozens and over a hundred polling stations in some constituencies. Turn up in one, vote, go to the next, vote, go to the next, vote. Every time you're a fresh voter that the different staff at the different stations haven't see.
Someone said earlier today that there's 135 polling stations in one constituency. 15 people going to each of those, voting once in their own, once fraudulantly in the rest would cast 2,000 fraudulant votes without anyone ever going to the same station twice.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale
It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
Eid bah gum!
Doesn't that depend on what's in the gum?
I used to work at a school in East London where the porcine origin of gelatine was an issue. One of my colleagues came up with the idea of an alternative set of jelly sweets called Halalibo.
My girlfriend works in one now, & she’s got tomorrow off as an extra days holiday because no one will turn up
A couple of years ago, Eid was in June on the day of one of the GCSE science exams. Leaving aside that Ramadan sucks when sunrise is super early and sunset is super late, massive respect to the kids who turned up to do an exam that day. They pretty much all did.
(There has to be something interesting about the sociology and geography of when religions fast. In Christendom, Lent falls in the European hungry gap. Ramadan moves round the year, but the geography of sunrise and sunset means that matters less in the Middle East than it does further north.)
A couple of weeks ago my football team beat a team of Muslims 4-3, having been 3-1 down at HT. They were top of the league pre lockdown so we were pretty chuffed.
When I told my gf, she said “none of them would have eaten or drunk since about 5am so they probably tired as the game went on”
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
Wonder IF there's gonna be any polling on Voter ID?
My guess is that responses could differ greatly depending on wording:
1. Do you favor issuing all eligible voters a photo ID card to be shown at the polls, as a means of reducing the danger of fraud and abuse at general and other elections?
versus
2. Do you favor making voters obtain a government-issued identity card with their picture and other personal data as a requirement in order to exercise their right to vote?
Perhaps the government could neutralise the issue by offering free blue passports to any citizen who doesn't have one and running a high-profile advertising campaign to promote them.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
There is electoral fraud but mostly involving postal votes and/or fictitious voters. The specific fraud of personation is vanishingly rare. It is only the latter which the government's photo ID proposal addresses; by coincidence, the one likely to disadvantage people who might vote for Opposition parties (although as @TheScreamingEagles has reported, some Conservative activists are worried it might also impact Tory voters).
How do you know its vanishingly rare if we're not looking for it and have no checks on it and there's a history of it being successfully used within our country?
Personation will easily be detected when the second voter turns up. If you are told you have already voted, that is a giveaway, whether you are the real or the fake voter.
Except someone on this site has already said they've turned up to vote and been told they'd already voted once before. That's on a site of political obsessives, who knows how often its happened to other people?
Especially if you target those the marked register have shown are non-voters in the past.
It happens. There were two convictions for personation in 2019. It is vanishingly rare. Electoral fraud is concentrated on postal votes, and has involved thousands of fraudulent votes per constituency. Postal votes also facilitate bribery, intimidation or other forms of coercion.
You might think it odd that the government's scheme seems more concerned with voter suppression than targeting significant fraud. Of course, the Conservative Party, like all the main parties, does well from postal votes so do not expect much action soon.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
I keep mentioning it because its already law of the land within the country and has been for decades, because it was deemed the only viable solution.
Checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns could only be done after the fact by which point its too late.
Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.
Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.
Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
OK, I disagree re your scaling point, because:
(1) You can't have the same impersonator going back to the same polling station more than - what - twice at absolute maximum. The third time they turn up, the chances of one of the two returning offices saying 'wait, haven't I seen you before?' increases to unacceptable levels for most would be criminals. (And don't forget you'll be going to prison if you're caught.) That really limits the number of fake votes you can cast.
(2) This means that to do it to any scale, you need multiple people willing to go in person and pretend to be someone else. Compare and contrast with postal vote fraud where one 'mastermind' can submit thousands of ballots.
But fundamentally, personation at any meaningful scale will be discovered by one of two things happening:
- Joe Bloggs finds someone has voted in his stead - A constituency has a pattern of DNV-DNV-DNV-V that is out of wack with the country as a whole (and - one would think - also had higher than expected turnout).
My point, though, is that there are ways to eliminate the issue of personation and that do so in a much more equitable manner.
(1) Why would you keep turning up to the same polling station? There'd dozens and over a hundred polling stations in some constituencies. Turn up in one, vote, go to the next, vote, go to the next, vote. Every time you're a fresh voter that the different staff at the different stations haven't see.
Someone said earlier today that there's 135 polling stations in one constituency. 15 people going to each of those, voting once in their own, once fraudulantly in the rest would cast 2,000 fraudulant votes without anyone ever going to the same station twice.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Re 2, let me do it myself. It's not complex. I doubt it'd take more than an hour or two to get a first run off.
Worth noting, of course, that it would be highly unlikely to happen outside of marginals (because why bother?).
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
I keep mentioning it because its already law of the land within the country and has been for decades, because it was deemed the only viable solution.
Checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns could only be done after the fact by which point its too late.
I have emailed Camden Council, and will first run this on St Pancras (because there definiely won't be electoral fraud there).
This is how bad an idea the voter ID proposals are, the GOP are praising them.
If I remember my history correctly The Queen was cancelled in 1776.
Since when could the Queen of England vote?
She's not ineligible.
Has she ever been on the electoral roll as a registered voter?
While she was Princes Elizabeth, after she turned 21 and before she ascended the throne?
And after. She's never sat in the Lords as a hereditary peer.
Question was, was she ever on the electoral roll? After she became queen no.
Between the time she turned twenty-one and her father died? Think she was an eligible voter during this period (1947-52) and thus on the rolls? Whether or not she actually voted is another matter; there were two general elections in that interval.
To those of us that love him, intimately, he is something even simpler. He is nothing less than THE DRAKE. An embodiment of hushed but puissant male sexual prowess. A predator that charms. A scorpion's kiss in the form of Welsh Labour
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
I keep mentioning it because its already law of the land within the country and has been for decades, because it was deemed the only viable solution.
Checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns could only be done after the fact by which point its too late.
I have emailed Camden Council, and will first run this on St Pancras (because there definiely won't be electoral fraud there).
I'd imagine there'd be some natural variance across the 650 constituencies each year.
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
Besides, the grim history of Northern Ireland means that it's different. There's no other part of the UK where the requirement that the executive is cross-party and cross-community is needed. In NI, that's (sadly) still needed to create trust. Similarly, the record of dodgy electoral practice means that the metaphorical cost of extra security measures is necessary to get sufficient public confidence in the system. Heck, it's recognised by everyone that B****** has to operate differently in NI compared with GB.
The fact that voter ID is needed in NI is a thing to lament, not a thing to emulate.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
I keep mentioning it because its already law of the land within the country and has been for decades, because it was deemed the only viable solution.
Checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns could only be done after the fact by which point its too late.
I have emailed Camden Council, and will first run this on St Pancras (because there definiely won't be electoral fraud there).
I'd imagine there'd be some natural variance across the 650 constituencies each year.
Of course - this is currently just a little experiment, seeing how easy it is to extract DNV-DNV-DNV-V data.
My guess is that once it's been done for one constituency, it'll be easy to repeat.
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
And she's got her photo ID.
A bit outdated, hard to tell if it's really her.
To whom would one complain?
She'd just have to get a couple of pound coins out of her purse instead.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
Besides, the grim history of Northern Ireland means that it's different. There's no other part of the UK where the requirement that the executive is cross-party and cross-community is needed. In NI, that's (sadly) still needed to create trust. Similarly, the record of dodgy electoral practice means that the metaphorical cost of extra security measures is necessary to get sufficient public confidence in the system. Heck, it's recognised by everyone that B****** has to operate differently in NI compared with GB.
The fact that voter ID is needed in NI is a thing to lament, not a thing to emulate.
I lament the fact that voter ID is needed in the UK too. Its a shame. 😕
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
Well this is the other crux. You've identified a potential issue but instead of putting in place some reasonable security measures you're supporting the equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillow fight, instead of perhaps a pillow of your own.
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
What is it?
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
Uh, checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns like @rcs1000 suggested, for example?
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
Besides, the grim history of Northern Ireland means that it's different. There's no other part of the UK where the requirement that the executive is cross-party and cross-community is needed. In NI, that's (sadly) still needed to create trust. Similarly, the record of dodgy electoral practice means that the metaphorical cost of extra security measures is necessary to get sufficient public confidence in the system. Heck, it's recognised by everyone that B****** has to operate differently in NI compared with GB.
The fact that voter ID is needed in NI is a thing to lament, not a thing to emulate.
Indeed. Don't see the LOTO being Deputy PM. Or "petitions of concern" allowing the opposition to block Bills. Maybe next year?
OK, you said "since when could she vote" which implies you though she was forbidden from doing so. She can vote if she is registered, just like anyone else.
And she's got her photo ID.
A bit outdated, hard to tell if it's really her.
To whom would one complain?
She'd just have to get a couple of pound coins out of her purse instead.
Sorry, but law provides that ONLY a voter ID card will do, no other form of ID?
Anyway, if pounds or pence would do, Liz would turn up in the late afternoon, only to find that some drag queen had personated her . . . and voted in her stead for the Wokeist Republican Party.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
In fact give me someone who cant read or write but spends there weekends picking up litter on the beach over some metropolitan leftie tosspot spouting about grammar as a net contributor anyday
From "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition (2019)
Introduction to the constituent parts of Parliament
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
Comment - Her Majesty the Queen is part of Parliament by her own right, and as such is not and CAN not be either a member of the House of Lords OR represented in the House of Commons. Thus she does NOT have a vote for MP.
"Queen in Parliament" is the formula.
Unless of course Boris has made some (more) constitutional changes without telling anyone!
And what is :"Erskine May"? According to wiki -
Erskine May is considered to be the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and the constitutional conventions affecting Parliament which form a major part of the uncodified UK constitution. It is not a rigid set of rules but a description of how the procedure evolved and of the conventions. Such is the authority of the text that it is regarded as analogous to part of the constitution itself.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
You don't make my country a better place.
Its said about one third of people collaborated in occupied western Europe and I've no doubt the English would have made no exception.
I imagine you Mr Pagan smiling as the untermensch are removed.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
As it is, indeed, in many US interstates (via EZ-Pass lanes)
Has anyone renewed their car insurance recently? Just had mine through and it's gone up a lot. Put my details through a comparison site and surprisingly my renewal quote was cheaper than anything else.
Might give my current provider a call, but was just a bit shocked. Has the tax gone up or something?
Renewed my father's car insurance end of April.
It went up by £150, rang them up, and they reduced it by £200.
I am in the hinterlands of being completely uninsurable - which I wear as a badge of honour. The only way I can do it is to insure everything TPO in my wife's name and add myself as a named driver.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
One might beg to differ.
One can beg all they like but will be told to go fuck off
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
In fact give me someone who cant read or write but spends there weekends picking up litter on the beach over some metropolitan leftie tosspot spouting about grammar as a net contributor anyday
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
As it is, indeed, in many US interstates (via EZ-Pass lanes)
The EZ-Pass being awarded based NOT on civic virtue, but just on filthy lucre!
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
You don't make my country a better place.
Its said about one third of people collaborated in occupied western Europe and I've no doubt the English would have made no exception.
I imagine you Mr Pagan smiling as the untermensch are removed.
Yes and I wouldn't have been one of them. Dont assume what you would have done counts for all
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
In fact give me someone who cant read or write but spends there weekends picking up litter on the beach over some metropolitan leftie tosspot spouting about grammar as a net contributor anyday
can’t
their
Yawns at the pedantic leftie who fails to address the argument so instead attacks the messenger
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
As it is, indeed, in many US interstates (via EZ-Pass lanes)
The EZ-Pass being awarded based NOT on civic virtue, but just on filthy lucre!
Thought that was the same thing in the US? (Ducks and takes cover)
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
Comments
And I'm going to bed.
You are justifying that obstacle on a few incidents of voter fraud that would not even have been stopped with the voter ID requirement.
I mean, fair enough if you actually believe that, but I think it's insane.
Seriously, I cannot figure it out. Is it for American monarchists who have no idea how government works?
To those of us that love him, intimately, he is something even simpler. He is nothing less than THE DRAKE. An embodiment of hushed but puissant male sexual prowess. A predator that charms. A scorpion's kiss in the form of Welsh Labour
I would rather a few incidents of voter fraud that had no material impact on the election if it meant more people were able to vote overall without incident.
In fact the greatest protection against voter fraud is mass participation.
Don't think that even the late Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley would buy THAT one.
Yes, there's been multiple cases of it that we know of, some organised, in recent years.
Is personation a viable fraud if left unguarded and unchecked?
Yes, there's been cases of it in the past. That's why photo ID was introduced by Labour.
The cases of electoral fraud in GB in recent years have shown that the notion that fraud could only be a Northern Ireland problem are sadly false.
Because personation is a real problem that can be and has been exploited. At the time it was naively assumed the risk of fraud was an NI-only problem, subsequent cases have shown that to be untrue.
It's absurd. I don't even think the principle of requiring some form of ID to vote is inherently wrong, but these arguments to impose it are flimsy as hell.
The GOP has forgotten & forsaken what 1776 was all about. Just ask Mike Pence and Liz Cheney.
Republican Party has crowned Donald I Trumpsky, by divine right of Great God MAGA as their King-for-Life AND Secret POTUS.
(Last sorta like Secret Santa except he leaves coal & shite under the tree for you to clean up.)
Especially if you target those the marked register have shown are non-voters in the past.
(1) You can't have the same impersonator going back to the same polling station more than - what - twice at absolute maximum. The third time they turn up, the chances of one of the two returning offices saying 'wait, haven't I seen you before?' increases to unacceptable levels for most would be criminals. (And don't forget you'll be going to prison if you're caught.) That really limits the number of fake votes you can cast.
(2) This means that to do it to any scale, you need multiple people willing to go in person and pretend to be someone else. Compare and contrast with postal vote fraud where one 'mastermind' can submit thousands of ballots.
But fundamentally, personation at any meaningful scale will be discovered by one of two things happening:
- Joe Bloggs finds someone has voted in his stead
- A constituency has a pattern of DNV-DNV-DNV-V that is out of wack with the country as a whole (and - one would think - also had higher than expected turnout).
My point, though, is that there are ways to eliminate the issue of personation and that do so in a much more equitable manner.
Leaving aside that Ramadan sucks when sunrise is super early and sunset is super late, massive respect to the kids who turned up to do an exam that day. They pretty much all did.
(There has to be something interesting about the sociology and geography of when religions fast. In Christendom, Lent falls in the European hungry gap. Ramadan moves round the year, but the geography of sunrise and sunset means that matters less in the Middle East than it does further north.)
Someone said earlier today that there's 135 polling stations in one constituency. 15 people going to each of those, voting once in their own, once fraudulantly in the rest would cast 2,000 fraudulant votes without anyone ever going to the same station twice.
(2) Does anyone check DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns and do any follow up? Or will it slip through the net because nobodies looking and there's no security?
There is a middle ground that does not suppress voting to the extent that requiring photo ID will.
Why wasn't it done in Northern Ireland?
When I told my gf, she said “none of them would have eaten or drunk since about 5am so they probably tired as the game went on”
Pissed on my chips a bit. I didn’t tell the lads
Northern Ireland is not relevant because I don't support the policy in Northern Ireland either, so why do you keep mentioning it?
My guess is that responses could differ greatly depending on wording:
1. Do you favor issuing all eligible voters a photo ID card to be shown at the polls, as a means of reducing the danger of fraud and abuse at general and other elections?
versus
2. Do you favor making voters obtain a government-issued identity card with their picture and other personal data as a requirement in order to exercise their right to vote?
You might think it odd that the government's scheme seems more concerned with voter suppression than targeting significant fraud. Of course, the Conservative Party, like all the main parties, does well from postal votes so do not expect much action soon.
Checking DNV-DNV-DNV-V patterns could only be done after the fact by which point its too late.
Worth noting, of course, that it would be highly unlikely to happen outside of marginals (because why bother?).
Which constituency?
Prince Charles has.
Between the time she turned twenty-one and her father died? Think she was an eligible voter during this period (1947-52) and thus on the rolls? Whether or not she actually voted is another matter; there were two general elections in that interval.
Just to be clear what I'm saying.
You can’t shake the Drake.
If she's never been a registered voter added to the electoral roll though, she's never been able to vote on election day.
But she's NEVER been a member of HoL, either before or certainly after ascending to the throne.
Note that Parliament consists of THREE separate elements:
> Queen (or King)
> House of Lords
> House of Commons.
Meanwhile. Just learning about Colombian protests during raging Covid wave.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/colombia-protests-reaction-responses-cali-bogota
“The current thinking points to social distancing going and mask wearing only in limited settings like buses, trains and the Tube.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14937397/masks-ripped-off-social-distancing-ditched-21-june/
While were at it, might as well call on Benny Hill as well, for a second opinion.
The fact that voter ID is needed in NI is a thing to lament, not a thing to emulate.
My guess is that once it's been done for one constituency, it'll be easy to repeat.
Maybe next year?
(Wonder IF Randy Andy had been using it to "entertain" his less-posh "guests"?
Anyway, if pounds or pence would do, Liz would turn up in the late afternoon, only to find that some drag queen had personated her . . . and voted in her stead for the Wokeist Republican Party.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1392385386706579457?s=20
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Introduction to the constituent parts of Parliament
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4499/introduction-to-the-constituent-parts-of-parliament/
Comment - Her Majesty the Queen is part of Parliament by her own right, and as such is not and CAN not be either a member of the House of Lords OR represented in the House of Commons. Thus she does NOT have a vote for MP.
"Queen in Parliament" is the formula.
Unless of course Boris has made some (more) constitutional changes without telling anyone!
And what is :"Erskine May"? According to wiki -
Erskine May is considered to be the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and the constitutional conventions affecting Parliament which form a major part of the uncodified UK constitution. It is not a rigid set of rules but a description of how the procedure evolved and of the conventions. Such is the authority of the text that it is regarded as analogous to part of the constitution itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
https://twitter.com/IndigoFast/status/1392608830316498953?s=20
Its said about one third of people collaborated in occupied western Europe and I've no doubt the English would have made no exception.
I imagine you Mr Pagan smiling as the untermensch are removed.
their
https://twitter.com/AmericaElige/status/1392611697475600400?s=20
"Some of the data is made up; some of the protocols were changed to give good data"
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)