politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission attacks the government’s planned vote

First!

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.

No change in the Conservative Home next Tory leader Tory members poll for March.

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

This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

FPT:

Pulpstar said:

Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html

https://order-order.com/2018/03/02/red-red-corbynistas-launch-vicious-attacks-lansman/

Nope, never saw that coming :-)

I thought people could bring along proof of address instead - if they don't have photo ID

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 problem may be a small one, but I find it hard to believe that it's as small as the Electoral Commission says. Just 28 instances? That sounds completely implausible.

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.

Peter_the_Punter said:

There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

You're thinking of the White House ?

Just because there were only 28 complaints does not mean that there were only 28 instances. Just because they don't know the scale of the problem is no reason for not improving the system to make it more robust.

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.

JosiasJessop said:

This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

Mr Jessop, this is Conservative Party policy. No doubt you are quite right. It is all of a piece.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

Pulpstar said:

Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html

But it is, of course, going to make US manufactured cars more expensive... so increased tariffs on foreign cars might then follow...

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

Yes, it’s a stupid idea from Trump, and he’s going to annoy his friendly neighbours like Canada when he’s trying to target China.

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.

Note this is a corrected version of the post I published half an hour ago.

Here is the script to that Newsroom episode

"...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

MikeSmithson said:

Note this is a corrected version of the post I published half an hour ago.

Thanks Mike. I retract my earlier comments about the Electoral Commission, but they do need to try harder not to employ people who are militantly partisan.

https://order-order.com/2016/06/07/key-electoral-commission-expenses-fraud-staffer-ranted-against-tories/

JosiasJessop said:

This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

But apparently not in Northern Ireland where it has been a requirement for years.

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.

Ishmael_Z said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?

Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

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.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

Pulpstar said:

Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html

But it is, of course, going to make US manufactured cars more expensive... so increased tariffs on foreign cars might then follow...

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

Yes, it’s a stupid idea from Trump, and he’s going to annoy his friendly neighbours like Canada when he’s trying to target China.

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.

Though if the US imposes tariffs on Chinese, Canadian and EU steel they might be a bit more keen to get a FTA with the UK for their steel and aluminium exports here. Which could give us a bit more leverage in terms of UK exports there too

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?

Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

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.

Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.

Bromley Council are taking place in the trial. However the council have no plans in place to measure the success or otherwise of the pilot. The councillor in charge commented to the effect that most people have a passport these days so what is the problem.

oxfordsimon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?

Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

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.

Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.

It’s probably a worthwhile change to make, providing that:

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.

Sean_F said:

MikeSmithson said:

Sean_F said:

Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

But what happens if you don't have ID?

Bring a proof of address, such as a council tax demand.

I have photographic ID - but I really struggle with proof of address.

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).

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.

I wonder why.

Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.

Except that's bollocks.

All the regular pb Leavers who post on here that I know have full-time jobs.

Ishmael_Z said:

viewcode said:

JosiasJessop said:

This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

Indeed. This was covered some years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxK8h0mp0ZI

So it shouldn't be unfairly and incompetently administered, but then nor should anything.

The point was that some people don't have ID and no means to obtain one. And since those people are disproportionately distributed amongst the parties, it has a partisan effect.

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.

Sean_F said:

MikeSmithson said:

Sean_F said:

Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

But what happens if you don't have ID?

Bring a proof of address, such as a council tax demand.

What happens if you don't have a fixed abode?

AndyJS said:

Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

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

Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front

MikeSmithson said:

Note this is a corrected version of the post I published half an hour ago.

Image is still 'Electoral Commission' and as Rog will tell you a picture is worth a thousand words...

JosiasJessop said:

oxfordsimon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?

Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

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.

Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.

Hmmm. Is NI the best example for this?

It is proof that Voter ID is already working in part of the UK and has been for over 30 years without any evidence of it suppressing voters.

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.

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

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

Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front

If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.

Even better: it'd let the Russian government vote for you!

(Electronic voting, and especially Internet voting, is a hideous idea)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.

Ask anyone who works in IT if they think that’s a good idea, or compatible with the secret ballot.

It isn’t.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

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

Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front

If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.

The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.

Ask anyone who works in IT if they think that’s a good idea, or compatible with the secret ballot.

It isn’t.

We need a sarcasm symbol.

Richard_Nabavi said:

What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

http://www.eoni.org.uk/Electoral-Identity-Card/Electoral-Identity-Card-FAQs#q34

They have a range of options - including the free Electoral Identity Card

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, I'd best be off. I may have some shovelling to do. Happily, the windchill factor will rise from -8 to -7 shortly. Mmm, toasty.

Take care. The biggest spike in heart attacks in the US is associated with snow-shovelling.....

Off topic rant:
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.

brendan16 said:

viewcode said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

...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.

Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

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 wasn't arguing that we can't. I was questioning why we should.

CarlottaVance said:

Stereotomy said:

By the way, how is this supposed to work with postal voting?

Which I would have thought a greater concern wrt fraud.....

Easy. Ban postal votes (except for the disabled and bedbound). Given their status as a fraud factory, I'd have no problem with that.

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.

brendan16 said:

viewcode said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

...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.

Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

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?

The Post Office refuse to accept the pensioner bus pass as a satisfactory form of ID when you go to pick up mail at the sorting office.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

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

So, what if you are already a subscriber to the print edition? Surely us loyal followers who have stuck with the ink should also get access?

rawzer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

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

ooh, do tell

Once you’ve read all your free articles just open up the next articles in an incognito window on your browser.

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

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

So, what if you are already a subscriber to the print edition? Surely us loyal followers who have stuck with the ink should also get access?

You will, will be included with your subscription.

viewcode said:

brendan16 said:

viewcode said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

...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.

Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

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 wasn't arguing that we can't. I was questioning why we should.

Perhaps you enjoy queuing or don't access many face to face public services? Been to casualty recently - and stuck in a long queue while the receptionist seeks name and address and GP and proof of entitlement to access the NHS from almost every arrival some of who, don't always have good English. In Ireland you just show the card - and all sorted.

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.

MikeSmithson said:

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.

brendan16 said:

viewcode said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

...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.

Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

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?

The Post Office refuse to accept the pensioner bus pass as a satisfactory form of ID when you go to pick up mail at the sorting office.

But they are fine with a bank card - debit or credit.

There are whole range of options that can be used. None of them totally secure - but better than the current free-for-all.

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.

I thought a death certificate was only required to register to vote?!

Ishmael_Z said:

Done properly, it disenfranchises nobody.

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.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that there is no evidence that it occurs to the extent that it is a problem (i.e. changes the results of an election).

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.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

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

Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front

If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.

The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!

UKIP didn't stand in half the seats. So you might argue had they done so they would have gone nearer 4 per cent. The 2 per cent didn't vote UKIP because they couldn't.

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Stereotomy said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

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

Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front

If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.

The Tories are on 40% now and Labour on 40% now. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!

Simple maths, but not really the correct maths for the situation

Oh absolutely the correct maths, the Tories need a clear Leaver next time to hold the 42% (40% will almost certainly never vote for Corbyn).

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

What about the Tory Remainers who jump ship?

There are very few Tory Remainers who might jump ship. Those from 2015 who were at risk mostly did so in 2017 (see kensington, Canterbury etc), and most of those remaining are much more exercised by stopping Corbyn than stopping brexit.