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

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.

Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?

I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.

Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.

Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...

YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?

The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .

...That doesn't make any sense. If the requirements are less onerous than needing a bank account, then how is the number of people finding it difficult going to be orders of magnitude more than those who would struggle with the bank account option? It is easier than needing to have a bank account, therefore the number struggling with that will be higher than those who cannot prove a bank account?

I'm still not sold on the necessity, and therefore proportionality of these trialed options, but the hyperbolic reactions around 'millions' are not helping the alternate case.

For those who are interested, we have done a long and pretty technical follow-up piece on the UK joining the Unified Patent Court system and why a role for the CJEU does not cross the government red lines. The last question and answer will be of most interest, I imagine.

http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=ff1a1e48-63cf-4424-a4b7-d1de442d50a9

Put simply, the UPC is an international agreement, not an EU one. A UPC court is not an EU court or a national court, but it can ask the CJEU to clarify issues of EU law which may be relevant. However, they are relevant only within the context of an international agreement, not an EU one.

To quote from the Q&A: "Hence CJEU jurisdiction over the UK (if you want to call it that) is indirect, as our existing first instance and appellate courts themselves are neither referring questions nor being given the answers and hence being told what to do."

The UPC courts are not UK, German, French etc, they are international. And the CJEU is not an appellate court within the UPC system. Hope that is clear!

I am not expressing it very well, but I hope you get the gist.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Brom said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.

I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.

So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....

How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?

Very few people would not have any ID on them, an even smaller number would have read or not read the letter and then gone to vote with no ID on them. Those that can't be bothered to then come back to their polling station 10 minutes away have made a personal choice about how much they value their vote. If I turn up to a football match without a ticket, a cash machine without a bank card or an airport without a passport then it's entirely my fault.
The point is everyone who can vote still qualifies to vote it's just a minimal amount of extra effort to make everyone's vote more secure.

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Brom said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.

I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.

So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....

How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?

I think that's the point, it will be enough to deter some people which is not what we want.
It also smacks of the kind of tricks that the Republicans get up to in the US.

Mr. 1000, I agree with your solution.

But I'd rather educate Mr. Eagles about the excellence of Hannibal, although he appears impervious to learning.

oxfordsimon said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.

Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?

I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.

Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.

Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...

YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?

The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .

Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.

Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.

Your passport doesn't have your address on it

Really? I thought it did...

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Brom said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.

I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.

So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....

How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?

Then it is their own fault. Sorry - but they are very easy rules to follow.

Beverley_C said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mrs C, your posts are transcending the usual boundaries today

It is a power series and might even be a sine of things to come. It could even become a continuous function if I can generate enough hyperbola

Stop going off on a tangent.

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JoeWatts_/status/992056187914014721

A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).

The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.

And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!

He definitely won't get a Noble prize.

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue.
Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step.
Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.

RobD said:

rkrkrk said:

oxfordsimon said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.

Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?

I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.

Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.

Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...

YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?

The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .

Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.

Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.

Your passport doesn't have your address on it

Really? I thought it did...

You can write it in the back, I think.

Ah perhaps that's what I've done.

RobD said:

rkrkrk said:

oxfordsimon said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.

Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?

I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.

Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.

Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...

YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?

The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .

Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.

Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.

Your passport doesn't have your address on it

Really? I thought it did...

You can write it in the back, I think.

A passport is a bloody useful form of ID to keep around when you move house in the UK precisely because it DOESN'T have your old address.

oxfordsimon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Brom said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Brom said:

I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.

Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.

I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.

So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....

How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?

Then it is their own fault. Sorry - but they are very easy rules to follow.

Their own fault, and yet society loses

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Hmmmm.

Cost of supplying camera and fingerprinting equipment (+ backup) to every polling station?

Security of images so can be used for prosecution later?

Invasion of privacy issue, so people with no ID are stigmatised instead?

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue.
Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step.
Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.

Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.

Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.

This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.

"we fingerprint people now for their driving license"

Do we?

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue.
Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step.
Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.

Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.

Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.

This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.

I guess you have an interest in fingerprint scanners......

As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.

In my area the polling station usually consists of two elderly women sitting behind a desk. No police, no security, no ID, no nothing, apart from those two ladies. I'd be surprised if there's ever been any fraud at this particular polling station.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue.
Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step.
Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.

Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.

Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.

This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.

No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.

Errr: I did mine at the Post Office about six months ago, and they took my photo with a special machine and also took my fingerprints. It may have been a trial, but they definitely took them.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue.
Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step.
Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.

Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.

Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.

This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.

No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.

Errr: I did mine at the Post Office about six months ago, and they took my photo with a special machine and also took my fingerprints. It may have been a trial, but they definitely took them.

I couriered a D1 form to my mum while she was India a few months back (licence expired while she was there) - she didn't need to give fingerprints!

Ishmael_Z said:

Assume a hypothetical subculture in which the females were routinely disempowered by not permitting them to drive or have their own money; hence no licenses or bank cards. There is a real danger of the ID requirement ruling out their power to carve themselves out a little bit of freedom by casting their own vote, and leave them stuck with a postal vote which might, again hypothetically, be effectively cast on their behalf by the males of the household. Hypothetically.

I think you're just being racist

SandyRentool said:

When I turned 18, all I had was a bus pass and a Building Society pass book. Would I have been able to vote?

Only if it was a Bus Pass Elvis

tlg86 said:

As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.

What about us ex-pats?

rpjs said:

tlg86 said:

As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.

What about us ex-pats?

Isn’t four weeks a big enough window in which to plan your return?

Obviously it’s different for those working for the government overseas. For them I’d make an exception.

@rcs_1000 Your solution seems good except
a) It is a bit 'un British'
b) It probably violates a whole bunch of GDPR.

SandyRentool said:

When I turned 18, all I had was a bus pass and a Building Society pass book. Would I have been able to vote?

Might that have been more than a few years ago?

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?

That would be cheap....

kle4 said:

logical_song said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JoeWatts_/status/992056187914014721

A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).

The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.

And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!

He definitely won't get a Noble prize.

I don't seriously think he will, and in any case only time can see if peace initiatives are worth the rhetoric, I just think it funny he might.

Obama got the peace prize before he even did anything!

No 'roll'?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991995845120753664

Beverley_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?

That would be cheap....

I thought such ties cost your parents £30K per year?

Only if you're thick.

AndyJS said:

SquareRoot said:

You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...

Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.

I can't remember the last time I was required to show ID for Amtrak, and you don't even need to notionally show it for commuter rail.

You'd only be required to show ID if you purchase at a staffed Amtrak ticket window, of which there are increasingly few. Everyone in practice buys e-tickets online or paper tickets from kiosks.

SandyRentool said:

When I turned 18, all I had was a bus pass and a Building Society pass book. Would I have been able to vote?

Yes the lord of the manor , would tell you where to place your mark.

Brexit in one diagram.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120

williamglenn said:

Brexit in one diagram.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120

The diagram falls into exactly the mistake most likely to generate division.

None of the three options is an absolute yes/no. There are degrees of freedom.

williamglenn said:

Brexit in one diagram.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120

Option B will be fudged. Who do you think the EU are more worried about pissing off - the UK or Ireland? Ask Greece.

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

Brexit in one diagram.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120

Option B will be fudged. Who do you think the EU are more worried about pissing off - the UK or Ireland? Ask Greece.

The UK is not of one mind on Brexit so that question is purely hypothetical.

williamglenn said:

Brexit in one diagram.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120

Actually that's a neat summary in one diagram of the nonsense frequently spoken about the Irish border. For an obvious start, there's already a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. For a marginally less obvious second, no matter how many times people repeat it, it's simply not true that not being in the CU/Single Market automatically implies that a hard border will suddenly appear in Ireland, apparently without any human intervention or political will, and despite the fact that not a single politician, country or the Commission wants to build one.

logical_song said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JoeWatts_/status/992056187914014721

A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).

The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.

And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!

He definitely won't get a Noble prize.

Noble...
Dynamite misspelling.

tlg86 said:

rpjs said:

AndyJS said:

SquareRoot said:

You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...

Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.

I can't remember the last time I was required to show ID for Amtrak, and you don't even need to notionally show it for commuter rail.

You'd only be required to show ID if you purchase at a staffed Amtrak ticket window, of which there are increasingly few. Everyone in practice buys e-tickets online or paper tickets from kiosks.

I was only joking. It would be quite an effort for someone to travel around the world to collect postal votes which presumably wouldn’t be going to the same ward/constituency.

That’s said, I’m not that keen on ex-pats voting. I’m not sure what the time limits are but I think they should be quite short.

We get fifteen years from leaving. Tory policy is to extend it to life. Personally I wouldn't have any objection to it being abolished but I will make use of it while I have it.

Just stumbled a bit of Poling news form the US, a Routers pole showing African American support for the US up a lot in a week:

Male support dubbing from 11% to 22%

and female up from 7% to 11%

Presumably, this is largely driven by Kenya Wests stream of tweets.

Will it last? Maybe

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/02/reuters-poll-black-male-approval-for-trump-doubles-in-one-week/

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Brexit in one diagram.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120

Actually that's a neat summary in one diagram of the nonsense frequently spoken about the Irish border. For an obvious start, there's already a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. For a marginally less obvious second, no matter how many times people repeat it, it's simply not true that not being in the CU/Single Market automatically implies that a hard border will suddenly appear in Ireland, apparently without any human intervention or political will, and despite the fact that not a single politician, country or the Commission wants to build one.

But it will create an unsustainable political and administrative situation. You are quite right than in practice is is unlikely to resolve itself by the erection of a hard border, but more likely to result in unification.

It will create a fudge, probably, in the noble tradition of EU fudges, although probably not as creative as the one they came up with for the hugely more difficult problem of northern Cyprus.

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.

Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.

This enables:

1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)

It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.

So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.

Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?

That would be cheap....

Ex-public school pupils should get 2 votes. That would be the simplest solution.

Pulpstar said:

@rcs_1000 Your solution seems good except
a) It is a bit 'un British'
b) It probably violates a whole bunch of GDPR.

Are you reasonably knowledgeable about GDPR ? If so, what is the correct way of sending mass emails or any emails ?