Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission attacks the government’s planned vote
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission attacks the government’s planned voter ID trials as “unnecessary and over-bearing’’
New figures on electoral fraud from the Electoral Commission show the tiny scale of the problem of personation which it says raises major questions about overbearing ID restrictions to be trialed at elections this May,
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Difficult one for the electoral commission and the government. My understanding was that there were issues with the voter registration process and postal ballots rather than on voting day itself, hence the change from household to individual voter registration a couple of years ago.
Rees Mogg comes top on 21%, Gove is second on 16% and Boris third on 13%. Rudd and Raab complete the top 5.
51% want May to be replaced as leader before the next general election but only 13% want her to step down as leader now
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/03/no-change-in-our-next-tory-leader-survey-rees-mogg-is-top-then-gove-then-johnson.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html
Verifying that somebody trying to vote is the same person listed on the register is basic and fundamental to democracy. How can we have confidence in electoral outcomes if the eligibility of voters is not validated? Secondly, saying it’s a tiny problem because there are few allegations is absolute nonsense. There are no meaningful controls, so we have no real idea how widespread the problem is.
Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland for decades. It is normal in Continental Europe, and not controversial.
The Electoral Commission has a lot to answer for. Guido has already found plenty of evidence of the political bias of the people who work there, and an institution that has an obligation to protect the integrity of the ballot should be supportive of the government’s efforts, rather than focusing on boosting turnout regardless of the consequences.
In some local authorities non-photo ID will be trialled. Who can object to that!
Nope, never saw that coming :-)
The fact anyone can turn up give a persons name and address without any checks and cast a vote on their behalf is frankly ridiculous. How about some other checks which could be asked if they don't have any ID at all - say date of birth or a bank card?
The explanation for this might be very simple: it's only if the real voter turns up later that you'd ever get an allegation of personation. But presumably if there is a problem here, it's the stealing of the votes of people who don't turn up at all, or pressure put on some voters to allow someone to vote illegally on their behalf.
Just a first shot in what might turn into a war, and even his own party is, for once, speaking out:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/trump-steel-tariffs-432143?lo=ap_b1
You're thinking of the White House ?
It is utterly ludicrous that someone can just walk in, give a name and address and get that vote. It always has been and it always will be.
Of course, ID has been required in Northern Ireland elections since 1985. So if it is good enough for NI, surely it can be good enough for the rest of the UK.
The trial is testing photo AND non-photo ID options - so until those trials are completed and assessed, it is too early to say what option will be adopted for widespread use. So complaining about the level of photo ID access at this stage is just a distraction from the central issue that our voting system is not secure.
Yes, there are big issues with regards to registration - and steps have been taken in that regards. The abolition of permanent postal voting on demand is top of my list for additional change. Postal voting should be the exception not the norm. It should be limited to those who will be away on polling day and those who are not physically able to attend a polling station due to health or mobility issues.
It should not be considered overbearing to produce ID to vote - considering you have to do more to join your local library. Adding in extra safeguards into our democratic system is not overbearing in the slightest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxK8h0mp0ZI
A trade war is in no-one’s interest, the correct way to deal with China’s steel dumping is by using the WTO, but the US have always preferred to bypass such organisations and do things their own way.
"...Dorothy Cooper is a 96-year-old resident of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and has been voting for the last 75 years. This year, she's been told she can't. A new law in Tennessee requires residents to show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Dorothy Cooper doesn't have a driver's license because Dorothy Cooper doesn't have a car. Dorothy Cooper doesn't have a passport. A vacation abroad was never in her future. Tennessee isn't alone. At this moment, or already adopted the same voter ID laws that have disqualified Dorothy Cooper from the one fundamental thing that we all do as Americans.
It's estimated that 11%, or roughly 20 million people, don't have government-issued voter IDs and will be disenfranchised this November. Why? To crack down on the terrible problem of voter fraud. - [cut to Governor Rick Perry of Texas, who is about to enter the presidential primary race, is serious about cracking down on the problem. Making sure that there's not fraud, making sure that [cut to Governor Rick Perry speaking ] That someone's not manipulating that process makes all the sense in the world to me. [cut back to studio]
To me, too, because voter fraud is such a huge problem that during a five-year period under the Bush Administration when 196 million votes were cast, the number of cases of voter fraud reached 86. Not 86,000. Here's what that number looks like as a percentage of votes cast-- 4/100,000ths of a percent.
This would be called a solution without a problem, but it's not. It's just a solution to a different problem. Republicans have a hard time getting certain people to vote for them, so life would be a lot easier if certain people just weren't allowed to vote at all..."
The script: here
The clip: here
Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.
https://order-order.com/2016/06/07/key-electoral-commission-expenses-fraud-staffer-ranted-against-tories/
Are Canada, France and Norway amongst many others not robust democracies? Of course almost every EU state bar the UK and a couple of others have a national Photo ID card which you need to access public services, Sounds like something we should look at - it would make life a lot easier rather than having separate processes for local and central government and the NHS.
It's been remarked upon repeatedly that if a few thousand votes had gone either way, May could have a 60 seat majority, or Corbyn could be PM. A small number of precisely located fraudsters can cause as much democratic harm as an unfocused but massive number.
There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.
Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.
Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
A. There’s a long implementation period, with specific assistance targeted at the elderly who are most likely to be affected.
B. The change is made as a result of a proper scientific study, by people that are seen to be politically impartial such as the Electoral Commission
C. Other issues such as the wide availability of postal ballots are addressed at the same time.
As others have pointed out, most countries have some sort of law around voter ID. Provided we don’t look to the utterly partisan shenanigans that happens in the USA it’ll probably work fine.
A good Yorkshireman enjoys the cold weather, as it gives us an opportunity to show the world just how much more resilient we are than Southerners.
I live in an HMO, therefore I am not the one liable for Council Tax.
I get all my bills electronically which means they have not been sent to me and are therefore commonly not accepted.
When I move I have to ask my Bank specially to issue a statement or two to my new address (for which curiously they require no proof).
All the regular pb Leavers who post on here that I know have full-time jobs.
It's not a bad point, and as has been pointed out NI does voter ID already. But it does demonstrate a disconnect between the governed and the governors: some people just don't have IDs (or mobile phones, or Skype, or WhatsApp), and denying them votes is not good.
Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.
Lab 40.7%
Con 40.5%
LD 7.6%
UKIP 4.1%
Green 2.2%
Changes since GE2017:
Lab -0.3%
Con -2.9%
LD no change
UKIP +2.2%
Green +0.5%
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
It is not unreasonable at all to ask people to prove that they are eligible to vote. Not unreasonable at all.
If you want to be part of the democratic purpose, turning up with proof of ID or address is not unreasonable.
The current system is open to abuse - whether or not the scale of that abuse is significant - reducing the potential for abuse is not unreasonable.
I don't understand the mindset that thinks that proving you are the person you claim to be at the polling station is in any way a bad or overbearing thing.
(Electronic voting, and especially Internet voting, is a hideous idea)
It isn’t.
...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
They have a range of options - including the free Electoral Identity Card
The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.
If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
I look out of my door this morning, and see the odd scubby patch of snow on the odd front lawn. Now, I don't evny the people stuck in their cars overnight or those without gas, but a decnt flurry would be fun. This is supposed to be the snowiest Britain this century. There isn't even enough to build a snowman in southwest Manchester.
Some people have full-time jobs with larger companies and there are HR departments and restrictions on Internet viewing. Some people work for small companies and can surf freely. Some people work at higher echelons and the rules are freer/non-existent. Others are self-employed. All have full-time jobs, but their posting patterns and voting patterns are different.
People being what they are, they tend in all cases I to do illegal things which are to their advantage, if they think the risk/reward ratio is in their favour. That is why you lock your house and your car and do not have your PIN numbers handily tattooed on your wrist. So, my evidence that it happens is: none, except human nature (and 28 alleged cases in 2017). Your evidence that it doesn't happen is: none, and in this one instance the innate goodness and decency of absolutely everybody uniquely wins out and ensures that the system needs no policing.
You don't do months of research into local burglary stats before fitting locks to your house, you just do it.
There's also a point very specific to voting, here. I attach a huge amount of importance to ensuring that I vote in each and every general election, despite the fact that my individual vote makes absolutely no difference to anything. I assume you, and everyone else here, feels the same. The importance of the act is maximally disproportionate to its actual effectiveness, and the theft of the right to do it should be judged on its importance in that sense, not its actual consequences. I therefore don't attach any weight to "it makes no difference" arguments.
Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman
Speccy paywall is clearly more for show than anything else, as was the Telegraph until a few weeks ago when they finally locked their “premium” content up properly. FT and the Times have pretty much always worked properly.
To get a majority they need to hope some Remainers move from Labour to LD and add a few more Labour Leavers and 2015 Tories who voted Labour over the dementia tax
Our public services need to move into the 21st century - and that would be a good way to start. I recently made an application for a relative for pension credit - a benefit for low income elderly which has a very poor take up rate - the only way to apply is to call a DWP call centre and make a 30 minute application over the phone! The person I was applying for is hard of hearing - no way they could have applied easily without someone else applying for them. No online or even postal application - only by phone. Antiquated isn't the word for it! A different issue but indicative of a common problem.
There are whole range of options that can be used. None of them totally secure - but better than the current free-for-all.
I believe it is important for everyone eligible to be able to vote, and this means balancing out the ease of access to vote, and the security of the ballot. Using a slightly silly example, we could have more security by asking everyone to vote at their local council offices, but this would reduce the accessibility. Likewise, we could go for electronic voting and dramatically increase accessibility, but reduce the security.
This move appears to tackle a problem that is essentially non-existent, and will reduce accessibility. If we believe it's a problem, then we should do more research into the scale of the issue, and if that shows that it is an issue, look at the best way of addressing it.
I'm also in favour of compulsory voting (with caveats), but that's a different argument.
The options you are describing are appropriate for a fulltime employee with a car and mobile phone in an urban area with the panoply of modern documentation: passport, drivers licence, bank card, etc. Some people don't fit that profile and never will.
Other forms of photo ID are available.
What time is May's speech ?
https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/969522432209051648
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/968920707538223104