Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A big question today is how many voters can’t cast their ballo

SystemSystem Posts: 12,682
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A big question today is how many voters can’t cast their ballots because they don’t have the required ID

Just been to vote. Was informed that two people had already turned up without ID this morning so had been unable to vote. Very worrying and backs up all the evidence that the voter ID pilot in Bromley is plain wrong.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    kle4 said:

    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.

    I think it is pretty unreasonable to put any barrier to voting without evidence that it is needed. Democracy relies on everyone's voice being heard, making it harder for people to vote is - all else being equal - undemocratic. And given the vanishingly small evidence of personation I see no benefit to balance against the cost of legitimate voters being disenfranchised.

    Remember, just because a rule is possible to comply with doesn't mean it isn't a barrier. If people had to vote within a specific hour, or memorise a unique voter ID, or whatever, that wouldn't be banning them from voting. But clearly a number of voters wouldn't manage to do it, and their voices should be heard too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    How do we know there hasn't been a case of personation without any ID requirements?

    If you know someone isn't going to turn out then it would be very easy to get away with it without raising suspicion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Incidentally, I'd go much further than just not having voter ID. Some countries manage to allow people to vote in any polling station, same-day voter registration, and in-person early voting. I'd be keen to look into all of those. If someone is on a business trip on election day there's no reason to either stop them voting or even force them to plan ahead and postal vote - if we are able to process their vote we should. If someone forgets to register ahead of time, but we have the capability to register them instantly, let's do it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    kle4 said:

    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.

    That precisely sums up my views on it too.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    The ID thing is bad but what's worse is requiring voter regiatration. If you show up to vote and you can prove you're resident,you shouldn't be turned away because you failed to receive and/or return a form weeks previously.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Quincel said:

    kle4 said:

    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.

    I think it is pretty unreasonable to put any barrier to voting without evidence that it is needed. Democracy relies on everyone's voice being heard, making it harder for people to vote is - all else being equal - undemocratic. And given the vanishingly small evidence of personation I see no benefit to balance against the cost of legitimate voters being disenfranchised.

    Remember, just because a rule is possible to comply with doesn't mean it isn't a barrier. If people had to vote within a specific hour, or memorise a unique voter ID, or whatever, that wouldn't be banning them from voting. But clearly a number of voters wouldn't manage to do it, and their voices should be heard too.
    I understand your concern. If there is no problem to solve, then any disruption to legitimate voters is disproportionate. But, if we were to set the bar at bank or credit cards or similar - something 95% of people have and 75% of people carry at all times outside their home, then the disruption would be small.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Philip_Thompson said:

    How do we know there hasn't been a case of personation without any ID requirements?

    If you know someone isn't going to turn out then it would be very easy to get away with it without raising suspicion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    A few reasons:

    1. What if the victim unexpected does vote, you'd be caught;
    2. What if the polling station staff recognise you aren't the other person (and as they are usually local residents that is far from impossible), you'd be caught;
    3. What if someone who knows the victim ever reviews the marked register (we do keep records, and sometime they are shared, or who voted but not for whom), you'd be caught;
    4. If you wanted to steal more than a tiny number of votes you'd need several people involved (you can't walk into a polling station twice and give different names), eventually someone will talk and you'd be caught.

    We can't 100% rule out a tiny level of undetected personation, but we don't usually clampdown on crime we have no evidence is happening. Especially when we know there will be harmful side-effects of the proposed action.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Quincel said:

    Incidentally, I'd go much further than just not having voter ID. Some countries manage to allow people to vote in any polling station, same-day voter registration, and in-person early voting. I'd be keen to look into all of those. If someone is on a business trip on election day there's no reason to either stop them voting or even force them to plan ahead and postal vote - if we are able to process their vote we should. If someone forgets to register ahead of time, but we have the capability to register them instantly, let's do it.

    If someone is away on business its possible to get a same-day proxy vote: https://www.yourvotematters.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/222467/Emergency-employment-proxy-vote-application-form.pdf
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edmundintokyo said:

    The ID thing is bad but what's worse is requiring voter regiatration. If you show up to vote and you can prove you're resident,you shouldn't be turned away because you failed to receive and/or return a form weeks previously.

    Not all residents can vote though. That would allow resident non-citizens to vote.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    The ID thing is bad but what's worse is requiring voter regiatration. If you show up to vote and you can prove you're resident,you shouldn't be turned away because you failed to receive and/or return a form weeks previously.

    Not all residents can vote though. That would allow resident non-citizens to vote.
    In some elections they can, of course. All elections in some cases.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    How do we know there hasn't been a case of personation without any ID requirements?

    If you know someone isn't going to turn out then it would be very easy to get away with it without raising suspicion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    A few reasons:

    1. What if the victim unexpected does vote, you'd be caught;
    2. What if the polling station staff recognise you aren't the other person (and as they are usually local residents that is far from impossible), you'd be caught;
    3. What if someone who knows the victim ever reviews the marked register (we do keep records, and sometime they are shared, or who voted but not for whom), you'd be caught;
    4. If you wanted to steal more than a tiny number of votes you'd need several people involved (you can't walk into a polling station twice and give different names), eventually someone will talk and you'd be caught.

    We can't 100% rule out a tiny level of undetected personation, but we don't usually clampdown on crime we have no evidence is happening. Especially when we know there will be harmful side-effects of the proposed action.
    Far easier, if you were so inclined, to abuse postal votes
  • johnhemmingjohnhemming Posts: 2
    Personation has been quite common for decades, but beyond the pink ballot papers it is really difficult to obtain evidence. At times we arrange for Polling Agents in Birmingham, but even that does not prevent personation it just makes it harder. In 2002 we identified about 22 voters in one ward that had been personated. Those are only the ones we identified (because the voter was not in the country or in prison or indeed dead).
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Quincel said:

    kle4 said:

    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.

    I think it is pretty unreasonable to put any barrier to voting without evidence that it is needed. Democracy relies on everyone's voice being heard, making it harder for people to vote is - all else being equal - undemocratic. And given the vanishingly small evidence of personation I see no benefit to balance against the cost of legitimate voters being disenfranchised.

    Remember, just because a rule is possible to comply with doesn't mean it isn't a barrier. If people had to vote within a specific hour, or memorise a unique voter ID, or whatever, that wouldn't be banning them from voting. But clearly a number of voters wouldn't manage to do it, and their voices should be heard too.
    I understand your concern. If there is no problem to solve, then any disruption to legitimate voters is disproportionate. But, if we were to set the bar at bank or credit cards or similar - something 95% of people have and 75% of people carry at all times outside their home, then the disruption would be small.
    But why have any bar? I just don't see why a requirement to vote should be carrying ID on your person. The time-limited nature of elections makes this a bigger problem than it sounds, I feel. The Tories often say that you need ID to collect a parcel from the Post Office*, but if you forget you can return the next day - not so with voting.

    *(You don't though, they never ask for it)
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    edited May 2018
    I decided not to vote in these elections, just like I didn't bother in the Mayoral election in 2016. Working in the Midlands doesn't help, and I didn't ask for a postal vote.

    But I did vote in person in the Referendum in 2016, and general elections in 2015 and 2017. I got the train and tube to Ilford North and returned to the Midlands each evening just in time for the Election Night program on each occasion!

    I like voting in person. It feels like you really have voted. I don't think voting postally has the same, er, "feel".
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    There was a time when there had officially been no cases of grooming and rape in Rotherham. Anyway I don't buy the argument that personation is trivial if there isn't enough of it to affect the result. We each have one vote's worth of stake in the government of the country, and a personated vote effectively disenfranchises one voter who votes the other way. It's like defecating on a War Memorial: the actual damage suffered is beside the point.

    Postal voting should be abolished immediately, except for the ill or absent (with holiday makers being entitled to a postal vote, unlike the old days). The benefit in better "engagement" (when actually it's better to let those too idle to waddle to the polling station rule themselves out of the political process) is outweighed x1000 by the obvious opportunity (taken by both parties) to cheat.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited May 2018
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    How do we know there hasn't been a case of personation without any ID requirements?

    If you know someone isn't going to turn out then it would be very easy to get away with it without raising suspicion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    A few reasons:

    1. What if the victim unexpected does vote, you'd be caught;
    2. What if the polling station staff recognise you aren't the other person (and as they are usually local residents that is far from impossible), you'd be caught;
    3. What if someone who knows the victim ever reviews the marked register (we do keep records, and sometime they are shared, or who voted but not for whom), you'd be caught;
    4. If you wanted to steal more than a tiny number of votes you'd need several people involved (you can't walk into a polling station twice and give different names), eventually someone will talk and you'd be caught.

    We can't 100% rule out a tiny level of undetected personation, but we don't usually clampdown on crime we have no evidence is happening. Especially when we know there will be harmful side-effects of the proposed action.
    Far easier, if you were so inclined, to abuse postal votes
    Oh indeed. For me the issue does come down to how reasonable the new requirements would be, and as I say I'm not coming down hard on the issue at the moment. Postal voting, though, on the surface seems to have more potential concerns.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Quincel said:

    Incidentally, I'd go much further than just not having voter ID. Some countries manage to allow people to vote in any polling station, same-day voter registration, and in-person early voting. I'd be keen to look into all of those. If someone is on a business trip on election day there's no reason to either stop them voting or even force them to plan ahead and postal vote - if we are able to process their vote we should. If someone forgets to register ahead of time, but we have the capability to register them instantly, let's do it.

    If someone is away on business its possible to get a same-day proxy vote: https://www.yourvotematters.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/222467/Emergency-employment-proxy-vote-application-form.pdf
    Yes, but if we can make it easier and reduce the process required I think we should. Just because something is possible doesn't mean access is easy, and it's important that access to voting be as easy as it can be. Given the lack of evidence that there is a problem to be solved, we shouldn't be making this less easy.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Elliot said:

    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.

    Except:

    a: You don't need ID to buy a drink unless you're 18-21. I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade.
    b: If you forget your ID at a bar you can return the next day and buy a drink. Not so with voting.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    I know I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country, but isn't it "impersonation" rather than "personation"?

    Sunil Prasannan, BSc (Hons.), ARCS, PhD
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    johnhemming said:

    Personation has been quite common for decades, but beyond the pink ballot papers it is really difficult to obtain evidence. At times we arrange for Polling Agents in Birmingham, but even that does not prevent personation it just makes it harder. In 2002 we identified about 22 voters in one ward that had been personated. Those are only the ones we identified (because the voter was not in the country or in prison or indeed dead).

    Did you inform the police? Where personation is happening it really should be dealt with. And though evidence of who stole the vote is tough, presumably verifying if a crime took place isn't (sworn statement from the voter that they didn't vote, evidence of them being away if applicable).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Quincel said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Quincel said:

    kle4 said:

    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.

    I think it is pretty unreasonable to put any barrier to voting without evidence that it is needed. Democracy relies on everyone's voice being heard, making it harder for people to vote is - all else being equal - undemocratic. And given the vanishingly small evidence of personation I see no benefit to balance against the cost of legitimate voters being disenfranchised.

    Remember, just because a rule is possible to comply with doesn't mean it isn't a barrier. If people had to vote within a specific hour, or memorise a unique voter ID, or whatever, that wouldn't be banning them from voting. But clearly a number of voters wouldn't manage to do it, and their voices should be heard too.
    I understand your concern. If there is no problem to solve, then any disruption to legitimate voters is disproportionate. But, if we were to set the bar at bank or credit cards or similar - something 95% of people have and 75% of people carry at all times outside their home, then the disruption would be small.
    But why have any bar? I just don't see why a requirement to vote should be carrying ID on your person. The time-limited nature of elections makes this a bigger problem than it sounds, I feel. The Tories often say that you need ID to collect a parcel from the Post Office*,
    *(You don't though, they never ask for it)
    You absolutely do at mine- they ask every time, and actually look at it, not just accepting people holding up a card quickly.

    Perhaps not the best analogy to use just because your post office has lax procedures.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Quincel said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Quincel said:

    kle4 said:

    I really don't know what to think on such stories. I like that our system has been operating on trust, nor is there an indication impersonation is a huge issue, but without studying the area in depth is it really so unreasonable for people to have to provide proof of identity to vote? Is it normal practice in elections worldwide for people not have to provide proof?

    I don't think there's been many problems so when the whole thing is dropped I won't be concerned, but I don't know how outraged to be either if it continues, if at all.

    I think it is pretty unreasonable to put any barrier to voting without evidence that it is needed. Democracy relies on everyone's voice being heard, making it harder for people to vote is - all else being equal - undemocratic. And given the vanishingly small evidence of personation I see no benefit to balance against the cost of legitimate voters being disenfranchised.

    Remember, just because a rule is possible to comply with doesn't mean it isn't a barrier. If people had to vote within a specific hour, or memorise a unique voter ID, or whatever, that wouldn't be banning them from voting. But clearly a number of voters wouldn't manage to do it, and their voices should be heard too.
    I understand your concern. If there is no problem to solve, then any disruption to legitimate voters is disproportionate. But, if we were to set the bar at bank or credit cards or similar - something 95% of people have and 75% of people carry at all times outside their home, then the disruption would be small.
    But why have any bar? I just don't see why a requirement to vote should be carrying ID on your person. The time-limited nature of elections makes this a bigger problem than it sounds, I feel. The Tories often say that you need ID to collect a parcel from the Post Office*, but if you forget you can return the next day - not so with voting.

    *(You don't though, they never ask for it)
    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I know I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country, but isn't it "impersonation" rather than "personation"?

    Sunil Prasannan, BSc (Hons.), ARCS, PhD

    Oddly enough no, though I think these days both words are used interchangeably in these circumstances. The legal term is actually 'Personation' though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personation
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I know I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country, but isn't it "impersonation" rather than "personation"?

    Sunil Prasannan, BSc (Hons.), ARCS, PhD

    Personation is right (only in the specific case of voter-impersonation).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,103
    Quincel said:

    Elliot said:

    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.

    Except:

    a: You don't need ID to buy a drink unless you're 18-21. I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade.
    b: If you forget your ID at a bar you can return the next day and buy a drink. Not so with voting.
    I got IDed at Tesco a couple of months back, I'm 36 !
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    kle4 said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    How do we know there hasn't been a case of personation without any ID requirements?

    If you know someone isn't going to turn out then it would be very easy to get away with it without raising suspicion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    A few reasons:

    1. What if the victim unexpected does vote, you'd be caught;
    2. What if the polling station staff recognise you aren't the other person (and as they are usually local residents that is far from impossible), you'd be caught;
    3. What if someone who knows the victim ever reviews the marked register (we do keep records, and sometime they are shared, or who voted but not for whom), you'd be caught;
    4. If you wanted to steal more than a tiny number of votes you'd need several people involved (you can't walk into a polling station twice and give different names), eventually someone will talk and you'd be caught.

    We can't 100% rule out a tiny level of undetected personation, but we don't usually clampdown on crime we have no evidence is happening. Especially when we know there will be harmful side-effects of the proposed action.
    Far easier, if you were so inclined, to abuse postal votes
    Oh indeed. For me the issue does come down to how reasonable the new requirements would be, and as I say I'm not coming down hard on the issue at the moment. Postal voting, though, on the surface seems to have more potential concerns.
    We really should check every signature on postal votes, and probably have additional checks too. There have been concerns ever since the system was brought in, and some notable cases of clear and significant fraud.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I know I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country, but isn't it "impersonation" rather than "personation"?

    Sunil Prasannan, BSc (Hons.), ARCS, PhD

    A quirk, I think.
    "Personation (rather than impersonation) is a primarily-legal term, meaning 'to assume the identity of another person with intent to deceive'. It is often used for the kind of voter fraud where an individual votes in an election, whilst pretending to be a different elector."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited May 2018
    Quincel said:

    Elliot said:

    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.

    Except:

    a: You don't need ID to buy a drink unless you're 18-21. I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade.
    b: If you forget your ID at a bar you can return the next day and buy a drink. Not so with voting.
    B is certainly true (and more important), but have never heard of the 'Challenge25' system? You can be well over 18, but if you don't look 25 or more they will ask for proof. So you often are asked to prove you're of age long past the time you have been legal to purchase. So again, not a great analogy, since there is an annoying burden in place which affects people perfectly legally able to purchase all the time. I don't drink, but on the occasions I have bought some alcohol I've been asked to provide proof of age.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 785
    Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Quincel said:

    Elliot said:

    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.

    Except:

    a: You don't need ID to buy a drink unless you're 18-21. I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade.
    b: If you forget your ID at a bar you can return the next day and buy a drink. Not so with voting.
    a. Its Challenge 25 in most of the country now not 21 and supposedly its the young who are struggling with ID despite being most asked for it and most used to carrying it anyway so that's total nonsense.
    b. If you forget with a vote there's a 15 hour window to vote in. Plus the polling station is invariably local so you can easily return.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I decided not to vote in these elections, just like I didn't bother in the Mayoral election in 2016.

    I have not voted yet. I do not know whether I will bother. Neither of the main parties deserves a vote and I am not sure that the LibDems deserve one either.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    How do we know there hasn't been a case of personation without any ID requirements?

    If you know someone isn't going to turn out then it would be very easy to get away with it without raising suspicion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    A few reasons:

    1. What if the victim unexpected does vote, you'd be caught;
    2. What if the polling station staff recognise you aren't the other person (and as they are usually local residents that is far from impossible), you'd be caught;
    3. What if someone who knows the victim ever reviews the marked register (we do keep records, and sometime they are shared, or who voted but not for whom), you'd be caught;
    4. If you wanted to steal more than a tiny number of votes you'd need several people involved (you can't walk into a polling station twice and give different names), eventually someone will talk and you'd be caught.

    We can't 100% rule out a tiny level of undetected personation, but we don't usually clampdown on crime we have no evidence is happening. Especially when we know there will be harmful side-effects of the proposed action.
    Far easier, if you were so inclined, to abuse postal votes
    Postal votes require date of birth (easy) and a signature.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    The ID thing is bad but what's worse is requiring voter regiatration. If you show up to vote and you can prove you're resident,you shouldn't be turned away because you failed to receive and/or return a form weeks previously.

    Not all residents can vote though. That would allow resident non-citizens to vote.
    Follow the same process as when you register, which iiuc is basically that you sign something and promise you're a citizen.

    Call it same-day registration if you prefer.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    edited May 2018
    kle4 said:

    Quincel said:

    Elliot said:

    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.

    Except:

    a: You don't need ID to buy a drink unless you're 18-21. I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade.
    b: If you forget your ID at a bar you can return the next day and buy a drink. Not so with voting.
    B is certainly true (and more important), but have never heard of the 'Challenge25' system? You can be well over 18, but if you don't look 25 or more they will ask for proof. So you often are asked to prove you're of age long past the time you have been legal to purchase. So again, not a great analogy, since there is an annoying burden in place which affects people perfectly legally able to purchase all the time. I don't drink, but on the occasions I have bought some alcohol I've been asked to provide proof of age.
    Except:

    a: We have a legitimate problem we are trying to stop with alcohol ID (i.e. underage drinking is well evidenced); and
    b: The existence of one annoying burden doesn't justify creating more for the hell of it!

    (Incidentally, I have seen Challenge 25. My experience was just that they stopped asking much earlier.)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edmundintokyo said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    The ID thing is bad but what's worse is requiring voter regiatration. If you show up to vote and you can prove you're resident,you shouldn't be turned away because you failed to receive and/or return a form weeks previously.

    Not all residents can vote though. That would allow resident non-citizens to vote.
    Follow the same process as when you register, which iiuc is basically that you sign something and promise you're a citizen.

    Call it same-day registration if you prefer.
    As I understand it the reason for in-advance registration is that checks are done to verify that you are indeed who you say you are and that you are a citizen. Its not just done on faith. If it is then yes lets do it your way but if there are checks done then there isn't time to do that on the day.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Shadsy has Labour to take Wandsworth at 4-6,Tories to retain Westminster 1-6.Some value to be had in Kensington and Chelsea to go to NOC at 12-1 and Labour to take every seat in Southwark at 3-1.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    johnhemming said:

    Personation has been quite common for decades, but beyond the pink ballot papers it is really difficult to obtain evidence. At times we arrange for Polling Agents in Birmingham, but even that does not prevent personation it just makes it harder. In 2002 we identified about 22 voters in one ward that had been personated. Those are only the ones we identified (because the voter was not in the country or in prison or indeed dead).

    Do you have a write-up of your methodology for this? IIRC there were some claims like this in the US but on closer expection they turned out to be people with similar names to a dead person etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
    Except the list of acceptable ID isn't just passports and drivers licences. Indeed in Northern Ireland where this is already the case you can apply for ID in advance for free. Problem solved.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
    Let me guess, places and demographics with an unusual predilection for voting fraud. Yet another reason to require ID.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited May 2018
    It's not exactly hard to comply. You don't need a passport or driving licence:

    What ID can I bring?

    To vote at a polling station in London Borough Bromley on 3 May 2018 you must take either one of the following:

    a passport issued by the United Kingdom, a Commonwealth country or a member state of the European Union
    a photocard driving licence (including a provisional licence) issued in the United Kingdom or by a Crown Dependency, or by a member State of the European Union
    an electoral identity card issued under section 13C (electoral identity card: Northern Ireland) of the Representation of the People Act 1983
    a biometric immigration document issued in the United Kingdom in accordance with regulations made under section 5 of the UK Borders Act 2007
    an identity card issued in the European Economic Area
    an Oyster 60+ London Pass
    a Freedom Pass (London)
    a PASS scheme card (national proof of age standards scheme)

    Or two of the following (one of which must show your registered address):

    a valid bank or building society debit card or credit card
    a poll card for the poll
    a driving licence (including a provisional licence) which is not in the form of a photocard.
    a birth certificate
    a marriage or civil partnership certificate
    an adoption certificate
    a firearms certificate granted under the Firearms Act 1968
    the record of a decision on bail made in respect of the voter in accordance with section 5(1) of the Bail Act 1976
    a bank or building society cheque book
    a mortgage statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a bank or building society statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a credit card statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a utility bill dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a council tax demand letter or statement dated within 12 months of the date of the poll
    a Form P45 or Form P60 dated within 12 months of the date of the poll

    What if I cannot provide any of the ID listed above?

    You can apply for a postal vote or proxy vote or you can apply for a Certificate of Identity.

    http://www.bromley.gov.uk/info/200033/elections_and_voting/1177/voter_id_pilot
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    OK, enough arguing on the internet for me for one day. Thanks to all for this not (yet) becoming rude and personal!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Quincel said:

    kle4 said:

    Quincel said:

    Elliot said:

    Presumably the reason these places were test areas is because they are areas without problems. It would be a mess if you first tested it in Tower Hamlets.

    Given you need ID to buy a drink, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be needed to vote. Especially when we have lots of cases of electoral fraud over the last few years.

    Except:

    a: You don't need ID to buy a drink unless you're 18-21. I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade.
    b: If you forget your ID at a bar you can return the next day and buy a drink. Not so with voting.
    B is certainly true (and more important), but have never heard of the 'Challenge25' system? You can be well over 18, but if you don't look 25 or more they will ask for proof. So you often are asked to prove you're of age long past the time you have been legal to purchase. So again, not a great analogy, since there is an annoying burden in place which affects people perfectly legally able to purchase all the time. I don't drink, but on the occasions I have bought some alcohol I've been asked to provide proof of age.
    Except:

    a: We have a legitimate problem we are trying to stop with alcohol ID (i.e. underage drinking is well evidenced); and
    b: The existence of one annoying burden doesn't justify creating more for the hell of it!

    (Incidentally, I have seen Challenge 25. My experience was just that they stopped asking much earlier.)
    Personation is a legitimate concern too and "oh the fraudster may be recognised" is not a solution.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited May 2018
    Beverley_C said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I decided not to vote in these elections, just like I didn't bother in the Mayoral election in 2016.

    I have not voted yet. I do not know whether I will bother. Neither of the main parties deserves a vote and I am not sure that the LibDems deserve one either.
    I voted on which party would be best for my local area and I have some issues with the governing party (labour)with policies, so my vote went elsewhere.
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 438
    Hopefully these trials will demonstrate very clearly what a terrible idea this is and then we can all forget about it. It seems to me that requiring ID to vote creates far more problems than it solves.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Torby_Fennel said:

    Hopefully these trials will demonstrate very clearly what a terrible idea this is and then we can all forget about it. It seems to me that requiring ID to vote creates far more problems than it solves.

    What problem does it create?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
    Except the list of acceptable ID isn't just passports and drivers licences. Indeed in Northern Ireland where this is already the case you can apply for ID in advance for free. Problem solved.
    Can't GB just copy whatever NI does?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    The ID thing is bad but what's worse is requiring voter regiatration. If you show up to vote and you can prove you're resident,you shouldn't be turned away because you failed to receive and/or return a form weeks previously.

    Not all residents can vote though. That would allow resident non-citizens to vote.
    Follow the same process as when you register, which iiuc is basically that you sign something and promise you're a citizen.

    Call it same-day registration if you prefer.
    As I understand it the reason for in-advance registration is that checks are done to verify that you are indeed who you say you are and that you are a citizen. Its not just done on faith. If it is then yes lets do it your way but if there are checks done then there isn't time to do that on the day.
    Voting security has recourse as well as prevention. Recourse is probably much more powerful in this case than prevention, because you'd have a low probability of getting caught (so prevention doesn't do much), but also a very low personal benefit, since the chance of one voter swinging a seat is low, and if they do the "benefit" of getting a better candidate (from the fraudster's point of view) is spread among lots of citizens. If you then make the penalty for fraud high - which it is - it becomes quite an unattractive proposition.

    This is why voting fraud tends not to happen much, even though the security preventing it has a lot of holes.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    edited May 2018
    welshowl said:

    Can't GB just copy whatever NI does?

    Are we back on Brexit?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Torby_Fennel said:

    Hopefully these trials will demonstrate very clearly what a terrible idea this is and then we can all forget about it. It seems to me that requiring ID to vote creates far more problems than it solves.

    Ok I'd like my state pension now please. I'm paid up for 35 years. And no I'm not handing over any ID to prove I'm 65 yet.

    Ok with you?
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    The Government should pilot a scheme whereby the presentation of a valid Labour Party membership card will be taken as sufficient proof of incapacity to exercise one's vote... ;)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    welshowl said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
    Except the list of acceptable ID isn't just passports and drivers licences. Indeed in Northern Ireland where this is already the case you can apply for ID in advance for free. Problem solved.
    Can't GB just copy whatever NI does?
    I see no good reason why not. If the government offers free ID for anyone who asks for it then there's no reason to be concerned.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    I seem to remember, on the day of the last General Election, a number of people had been boasting on Twitter of voting twice, mostly students, who calmed to have voted ones at their Uni address and ones at their parents address.

    I have no idea if these where real or just attention seeking, I have not heard of any body being prosecuted for it. But I think it did bring attention to an issue, and I think some people get very protective about the concept of Democracy, and very angry about the idea of trust being abused.

    As always my biggest wish would be to shrink the Size and Scope of government so that voting becomes less important, and people have more freedom to to live their lives as they chooses. however that not going to happen overnight.

    Just a thought but how would PBs feel about adopting the system used in some, mostly developing country's, getting all voters to dip a finger in a permanent ink, at the voting station, so that if they try to vote a second time it would be spoted and could be stopped? I cant see that becoming an obstetrical to anybody voting, but would at least reduse the fear or anybody abusing that part of the system. Postal voting is another matter.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    williamglenn said:

    welshowl said:

    Can't GB just copy whatever NI does?

    Are we back on Brexit?
    Only in the sense that these are the last elections EU citizens (well of 24 of them) can vote in...................
  • FangsyFangsy Posts: 28
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    It's not exactly hard to comply. You don't need a passport or driving licence:

    What ID can I bring?

    To vote at a polling station in London Borough Bromley on 3 May 2018 you must take either one of the following:

    a passport issued by the United Kingdom, a Commonwealth country or a member state of the European Union
    a photocard driving licence (including a provisional licence) issued in the United Kingdom or by a Crown Dependency, or by a member State of the European Union
    an electoral identity card issued under section 13C (electoral identity card: Northern Ireland) of the Representation of the People Act 1983
    a biometric immigration document issued in the United Kingdom in accordance with regulations made under section 5 of the UK Borders Act 2007
    an identity card issued in the European Economic Area
    an Oyster 60+ London Pass
    a Freedom Pass (London)
    a PASS scheme card (national proof of age standards scheme)

    Or two of the following (one of which must show your registered address):

    a valid bank or building society debit card or credit card
    a poll card for the poll
    a driving licence (including a provisional licence) which is not in the form of a photocard.
    a birth certificate
    a marriage or civil partnership certificate
    an adoption certificate
    a firearms certificate granted under the Firearms Act 1968
    the record of a decision on bail made in respect of the voter in accordance with section 5(1) of the Bail Act 1976
    a bank or building society cheque book
    a mortgage statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a bank or building society statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a credit card statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a utility bill dated within 3 months of the date of the poll
    a council tax demand letter or statement dated within 12 months of the date of the poll
    a Form P45 or Form P60 dated within 12 months of the date of the poll

    What if I cannot provide any of the ID listed above?

    You can apply for a postal vote or proxy vote or you can apply for a Certificate of Identity.

    http://www.bromley.gov.uk/info/200033/elections_and_voting/1177/voter_id_pilot

    ...and as a Bromley resident I've had several weeks' notice, two reminders through the post, and seen several posters in the street. I can understand a few issues with those who don't pay utility bills etc. directly, but turning-up at the polling station with no ID is pathetic.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,379
    Philip_Thompson said:

    welshowl said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
    Except the list of acceptable ID isn't just passports and drivers licences. Indeed in Northern Ireland where this is already the case you can apply for ID in advance for free. Problem solved.
    Can't GB just copy whatever NI does?
    I see no good reason why not. If the government offers free ID for anyone who asks for it then there's no reason to be concerned.
    What ID do you need to present in order to be issued with a free ID?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    welshowl said:

    Torby_Fennel said:

    Hopefully these trials will demonstrate very clearly what a terrible idea this is and then we can all forget about it. It seems to me that requiring ID to vote creates far more problems than it solves.

    Ok I'd like my state pension now please. I'm paid up for 35 years. And no I'm not handing over any ID to prove I'm 65 yet.

    Ok with you?
    Compare the incentives. Fraudulently claiming a state pension would get you £200 a week. Personation at a polling station would give you no benefit -- not even the MP of your choice. You see the difference?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    It's always funny talking to Europeans about voter ID or ID in general.

    When I said to a Spanish friend of mine that I could just turn up to the polling station and tell them my name and address with nothing to prove that I was who I said I was, he was very surprised "no wonder Britain voted to leave!" :D
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Philip_Thompson said:



    I see no good reason why not. If the government offers free ID for anyone who asks for it then there's no reason to be concerned.

    Even then you should still have a big information campaign etc.
    In any case - that's not what the government is doing.
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 712
    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited May 2018
    I wanted to draw £50 from my building society account once - I had the passbook but they wouldn't let me as I didn't have photo ID let alone general ID such as a bank or credit card.

    Perhaps if you are deemed capable of voting you could just get up to speed with the rules. Is it really such a hardship to provide ID?

    It's also a bit patronising as well to suggest poor people or BME groups can't cope with this - as this US video illustrates.

    https://youtu.be/rrBxZGWCdgs
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    I also have to say my view is slowly changing on ID cards, having lived in a country with mandatory ID cards, it is starting to make sense. When I came back over the German border once I got stopped and obviously I had my passport with me so it wasn't an issue, but in the centre there were at least 10 "migrants" that had also been stopped without ID and clearly they were going to be sent to some kind of detention/deportation centre.

    I think if the UK introduced it, the first one should be free and valid for 10 years, then the renewals should be as cheap as renewing the driving licence.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    welshowl said:

    Torby_Fennel said:

    Hopefully these trials will demonstrate very clearly what a terrible idea this is and then we can all forget about it. It seems to me that requiring ID to vote creates far more problems than it solves.

    Ok I'd like my state pension now please. I'm paid up for 35 years. And no I'm not handing over any ID to prove I'm 65 yet.

    Ok with you?
    Compare the incentives. Fraudulently claiming a state pension would get you £200 a week. Personation at a polling station would give you no benefit -- not even the MP of your choice. You see the difference?
    Yes of course. But do we try and enforce the law or not? A bit like immigration, the perception of control matters almost as much as the reality. If the system is suspected of being undermined, you undermine the consent the losers in elections give to the victors for a while.

    The Bromley list folks have quoted looks pretty comprehensive though doubtless someone will find due course to pick a hole in something.

    In all likelihood it's postal votes that are going to be more dodgy, but as I said yesterday, hate the idea though I do, a lot of the ID/admin/nationality/voting issues we now have would be solved largely by a national ID card.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    LOL!
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    SandraMc said:

    Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.

    It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    nunuone said:

    SandraMc said:

    Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.

    It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.

    It would hit some pretty random groups of people, mostly the unprepared, i.e. on the one hand people who do regularly vote and on the other hand exactly the people we want to become politically engaged.

    People with a pattern of voting will be well equipped with the rules.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Do postal voters need to have photo ID validation?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    welshowl said:

    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!
    Then we can encourage people to think twice before voting.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    Jonathan said:

    Do postal voters need to have photo ID validation?

    No; no extra ID apart from receipt of the postal packet apparently.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    welshowl said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    welshowl said:

    Torby_Fennel said:

    Hopefully these trials will demonstrate very clearly what a terrible idea this is and then we can all forget about it. It seems to me that requiring ID to vote creates far more problems than it solves.

    Ok I'd like my state pension now please. I'm paid up for 35 years. And no I'm not handing over any ID to prove I'm 65 yet.

    Ok with you?
    Compare the incentives. Fraudulently claiming a state pension would get you £200 a week. Personation at a polling station would give you no benefit -- not even the MP of your choice. You see the difference?
    Yes of course. But do we try and enforce the law or not? A bit like immigration, the perception of control matters almost as much as the reality. If the system is suspected of being undermined, you undermine the consent the losers in elections give to the victors for a while.

    The Bromley list folks have quoted looks pretty comprehensive though doubtless someone will find due course to pick a hole in something.

    In all likelihood it's postal votes that are going to be more dodgy, but as I said yesterday, hate the idea though I do, a lot of the ID/admin/nationality/voting issues we now have would be solved largely by a national ID card.
    Here is the EC report on electoral fraud in 2016 -- which included local, regional and mayoral elections as well as the referendum. At a quick glance, it reports just six cases of personation. The reason it is rare is that it is provides no real benefit -- even if 6 is really 6,000 that's fewer than 10 fraudulent votes in each parliamentary constituency and less than one in each council ward. But it wasn't 6,000, it was six.
    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/223184/Fraud-allegations-data-report-2016.pdf
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    Do postal voters need to have photo ID validation?

    No; no extra ID apart from receipt of the postal packet apparently.
    That's an obvious discrepancy. If you don't need it for postal votes, why do you need it for people who show up to vote?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,103
    welshowl said:

    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!
    The Supreme people's assembly manages to get the vote out in the high 99% with ~100% support for the Fatherland Front.

    Here are some more rather one sided historic votes:

    187 : 17900
    1,513 : 3
    51,773 : 1,039
    4,453,912 : 11,929
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Jonathan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    Do postal voters need to have photo ID validation?

    No; no extra ID apart from receipt of the postal packet apparently.
    That's an obvious discrepancy. If you don't need it for postal votes, why do you need it for people who show up to vote?
    It's backwards. Sure, voting twice in person would be pretty straightforward, but voting 22 times all but impossible, but with postal voting there isn't any practical cap.

  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,086
    edited May 2018
    FPT - Thanks to @Sean_F and @stodge for the recommendations.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Jonathan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    Do postal voters need to have photo ID validation?

    No; no extra ID apart from receipt of the postal packet apparently.
    That's an obvious discrepancy. If you don't need it for postal votes, why do you need it for people who show up to vote?
    The control with postal votes is that the ballot pack is sent to the address on the electoral register. When you fill it in you have to sign on the ballot envelope as well as giving your date of birth. These have to match what they have on file for your vote to count.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    welshowl said:



    Yes of course. But do we try and enforce the law or not? A bit like immigration, the perception of control matters almost as much as the reality. If the system is suspected of being undermined, you undermine the consent the losers in elections give to the victors for a while.

    That's an unwinnable game to play, because if you start making concessions that also reduce the ability to vote to one or the other side's benefit, you give one side an incentive to *create* fear of fraud, whether justified or not, to get you to do more of it.

    There are some genuine security trade-offs here but you need a rational policy based on actual risks, not politically-gameable security theatre.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Jonathan said:

    Do postal voters need to have photo ID validation?

    You do need your signiture and date of birth,like anyone would check.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    nunuone said:

    SandraMc said:

    Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.

    It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.

    Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.

    Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    https://twitter.com/HughRBennett/status/992024966752333825
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,103
    I can see both sides of this argument, and I think a bank card should probably be sufficient.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Pulpstar said:

    welshowl said:

    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!
    The Supreme people's assembly manages to get the vote out in the high 99% with ~100% support for the Fatherland Front.

    Here are some more rather one sided historic votes:

    187 : 17900
    1,513 : 3
    51,773 : 1,039
    4,453,912 : 11,929
    Where and when were they?

    I thought Gibraltar in 1967 was pretty close to the record for most one sided. (N Korea et al aside)
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Seems common-sense to me to require ID.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    SandyRentool said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    welshowl said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Quincel said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    I've been asked for ID regularly from the Post Office. I also have needed to show a delivery driver ID for a parcel delivered to my own home before they'd hand it over (a new phone). Go to the supermarket if you look young and you can need ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, knives and even eggs in late October. I don't know anyone in this day and age that doesn't have some form of ID - you are the one looking for the problem as everyone has it.

    If you forget you can return later the same day our polling stations are open for 15 hours which is longer than almost any other nation I can think of.

    About 10m people don't have a drivers licence in the UK, a similar number don't have passports. The reason you don't know any of them is because they are disproportionately clumped together in certain places and demographics. Yet another reason not to require ID - it doesn't even randomly depress turnout.

    But even if everyone did have ID, people will simply forget. And forgetting your ID is a rubbish reason for not being heard in an election. When Canada tried voter ID they found 4% of voters didn't have any of the required IDs, and another 4% of people who turned up at the polling station didn't bring it with them. That's 8% of people who were eligible to vote but failed to comply with the bureaucracy. Given the bureaucracy isn't serving any obvious purpose (i.e. there is no evidence of personation being at all common) that's a price not worth paying.
    Except the list of acceptable ID isn't just passports and drivers licences. Indeed in Northern Ireland where this is already the case you can apply for ID in advance for free. Problem solved.
    Can't GB just copy whatever NI does?
    I see no good reason why not. If the government offers free ID for anyone who asks for it then there's no reason to be concerned.
    What ID do you need to present in order to be issued with a free ID?
    You don't need any. You just need anyone with "good standing in the community" to say they know you and sign the form: http://www.bromley.gov.uk/downloads/file/3383/certificate_of_identity_application
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    The People's Republic of Bercow spokesman will refute this story shortly...

    https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/992033570205118470
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    welshowl said:

    Pulpstar said:

    welshowl said:

    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!
    The Supreme people's assembly manages to get the vote out in the high 99% with ~100% support for the Fatherland Front.

    Here are some more rather one sided historic votes:

    187 : 17900
    1,513 : 3
    51,773 : 1,039
    4,453,912 : 11,929
    Where and when were they?

    I thought Gibraltar in 1967 was pretty close to the record for most one sided. (N Korea et al aside)
    Was number two The Falklands?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rkrkrk said:

    nunuone said:

    SandraMc said:

    Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.

    It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.

    Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.

    Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.
    I don't believe it will reduce anyone's vote. Unless personation is a real issue in which case it will reduce that - if it isn't as claimed then everyone will still get their votes.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    The People's Republic of Bercow spokesman will refute this story shortly...

    https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/992033570205118470

    "They just slammed the door in my face, it was so rude and unprofessional"
  • chloechloe Posts: 308
    This is on the BBC website re London boroughs:
    “London boroughs are more similar to districts. They organise social services, bin collections and local parks, while the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed up by the Mayor of London, is responsible for policing, fire, and transport services. The responsibility for housing and road maintenance is shared by the boroughs and the GLA.”

    I don’t think the comparison with district councils is accurate. London borough are responsible for education and social services like unitary councils and county councils. Ok the GLA is responsible for policing and has a strategic planning function but housing is predominately a borough function supported by funding from the GLA as London’s version of Homes England.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,103
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    welshowl said:

    Pulpstar said:

    welshowl said:

    PeterMannion said:

    With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice

    When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!
    The Supreme people's assembly manages to get the vote out in the high 99% with ~100% support for the Fatherland Front.

    Here are some more rather one sided historic votes:

    187 : 17900
    1,513 : 3
    51,773 : 1,039
    4,453,912 : 11,929
    Where and when were they?

    I thought Gibraltar in 1967 was pretty close to the record for most one sided. (N Korea et al aside)
    Was number two The Falklands?
    Yep
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,103
    chloe said:

    This is on the BBC website re London boroughs:
    “London boroughs are more similar to districts. They organise social services, bin collections and local parks, while the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed up by the Mayor of London, is responsible for policing, fire, and transport services. The responsibility for housing and road maintenance is shared by the boroughs and the GLA.”

    I don’t think the comparison with district councils is accurate. London borough are responsible for education and social services like unitary councils and county councils. Ok the GLA is responsible for policing and has a strategic planning function but housing is predominately a borough function supported by funding from the GLA as London’s version of Homes England.

    Jokes about Tower Hamlets aside I think London has the right idea on the general system of local governance.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Philip_Thompson said:

    rkrkrk said:

    nunuone said:

    SandraMc said:

    Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.

    It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.

    Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.

    Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.
    I don't believe it will reduce anyone's vote. Unless personation is a real issue in which case it will reduce that - if it isn't as claimed then everyone will still get their votes.
    No they won't. That's the point. It rules out some electors -- whether or not by design, whether or not for party advantage -- to solve a problem that barely exists in the first place.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Pulpstar said:

    chloe said:

    This is on the BBC website re London boroughs:
    “London boroughs are more similar to districts. They organise social services, bin collections and local parks, while the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed up by the Mayor of London, is responsible for policing, fire, and transport services. The responsibility for housing and road maintenance is shared by the boroughs and the GLA.”

    I don’t think the comparison with district councils is accurate. London borough are responsible for education and social services like unitary councils and county councils. Ok the GLA is responsible for policing and has a strategic planning function but housing is predominately a borough function supported by funding from the GLA as London’s version of Homes England.

    Jokes about Tower Hamlets aside I think London has the right idea on the general system of local governance.

    In Tower Hamlets mayoralty election I...

    I...

    I...

    Gave Labour my second preference.

    It took a lot of courage but I managed it.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    "As a general rule it is far better for moves about changing the way democracy operates to be based on cross party consensus. No doubt we’ll hear the ID issue being cited as a factor tonight where parties don’t meet expectations."

    If it swings Bromley that really will be a shock!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,103
    What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,379
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    chloe said:

    This is on the BBC website re London boroughs:
    “London boroughs are more similar to districts. They organise social services, bin collections and local parks, while the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed up by the Mayor of London, is responsible for policing, fire, and transport services. The responsibility for housing and road maintenance is shared by the boroughs and the GLA.”

    I don’t think the comparison with district councils is accurate. London borough are responsible for education and social services like unitary councils and county councils. Ok the GLA is responsible for policing and has a strategic planning function but housing is predominately a borough function supported by funding from the GLA as London’s version of Homes England.

    Jokes about Tower Hamlets aside I think London has the right idea on the general system of local governance.

    In Tower Hamlets mayoralty election I...

    I...

    I...

    Gave Labour my second preference.

    It took a lot of courage but I managed it.
    Wise move - I doubt TUSC will finish in the top two, so your first preference will be redistributed.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Pulpstar said:


    I got IDed at Tesco a couple of months back, I'm 36 !

    Hehe, they're so over-cautious with the drinks laws.

    Congratulations on your superb genes!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Pulpstar said:

    What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.

    Havering & Sutton to the Tories...

    Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?

    That I think is probably the only route.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025