[Politics] Is a Photo ID requirement for Voting a Good Idea?

[Bozza]

I am done explaining.

I accept your concession.

 

[The Clamp]

I accept your concession.

You’re probably right. Have a peaceful evening.

 

[Bodian]

You need photo ID to pick up a parcel from the post office, and an Albion ticket at an away game - why not to vote?

All Europeans laugh at us when we say we don't have ID

Nothing to hide - then nothing to worry about IMO

Maybe we should be asking the other way round? If we have existed quite well for 100+ years without needing photo ID for voting - why do we need photo ID for Albion away games or picking up a parcel??

Expired passports are still valid forms of ID for the purpose of voting according to this link:

Voter ID list gives few options for younger voters

Long-awaited details of the government’s voter ID scheme have now finally been released including details of which IDs will be accepted at the polling station.With no alternatives for

www.electoral-reform.org.uk

It's still a load of bollocks though, and I'm in no doubt that voter fraud is negligible and this is nothing more than an attempt to suppress the non-tory vote.

I've got my old blue one somewhere - I shall dig it out in readiness.

You can no more prove that there is not widescale election fraud than I can prove there is.

I completely agree that it is very unlikely that it happens on any kind of scale, but I can't prove that, and nor can you.

I suppose the point is - if we all seemingly accept that there isn't actually any evidence of voter fraud on a wide scale - then what is your understanding of the justification of the need to bring in photo ID to vote? Or have I misunderstood (which is quite likely - it's been a tiring day), and you don't actually think there is a need for photo ID?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Without trying to sound like an insensitive ****, if someone is suffering that badly from dementia, should they be able to vote?

I can't answer that. I don't know.

 

[nicko31]

How much is it costing to implement the voter suppression ?

 

[Bodian]

How much is it costing to implement the voter suppression ?

Take your pick.

"The Government think their scheme could cost up to £180,000,000 a decade." https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/voter-id/

"A controversial policy to oblige all voters to show photo ID before voting in future elections will cost around £40m in extra government spending over a decade, Labour has said" https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-will-cost-40m-over-a-decade-labour-estimates

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

First things first. Introduce a compulsory ID Card, then use that for Voter ID. Otherwise it might just look like a struggling, unpopular government using it as a distraction and a mechanism to retain power.

Of course this government could not be accused of that. They are simply trying to address a problem that may or may not exist. And as they have done such a good job in the past thirteen years in so many of the other areas of our lives we can fully trust them with this.

 

[zefarelly]

How much is it costing to implement the voter suppression ?

What ever it is is negligible IMO. THe quality of politicians has done more damage than anything else, the apathetic party would run the house forever as things stand. THat is the problem. Voting is a piece of piss, anyone can do it, the problem is, no one wants to.

The whole system needs reformation and casting a vote for anyone or no one must be compulsoiry. There should be something inplace that says if 'you're all shit, f*** off and die' wins then so be it. Let a squirrel and a dog take charge.

Which frankly would be an improvement.

 

[Peteinblack]

As always, it's the sheer hypocrisy of the Tories which sickens me.

When New Labour tried to introduce ID Cards (which I opposed), the Tories screamed about civil liberties and claimed that only totalitarian regimes (like the Soviet Union and North Korea) forced citizens to carry ID Cards.

Yet somehow, the Tories now think ID Cards are wonderful and necessary.

The usual arrogant Tory attitude and double-standards - if Labour do something, it's terrible and the end of civilisation as we know it, but if we Tories do exactly the same, it immediately becomes marvellous and essential and only a traitor would oppose it.

Still, the Tories should be careful what they wish for - although it is sections of the poor, the working-class and the elderly who are most likely not to have suitable ID, these are actually the people who tend to vote Tory these days ('cos they think that anyone half a millimetre to the Left of Nigel Farage is a raving Communist), so its is actually some of the Tories' own electoral base that might end-up being disenfranchised. Now that would be hilarious!

 

[Peteinblack]

First things first. Introduce a compulsory ID Card, then use that for Voter ID. Otherwise it might just look like a struggling, unpopular government using it as a distraction and a mechanism to retain power.

Of course this government could not be accused of that. They are simply trying to address a problem that may or may not exist. And as they have done such a good job in the past thirteen years in so many of the other areas of our lives we can fully trust them with this.

Yes, another distract and divide tactic, another dead cat thrown on the table, and another weapon in their Culture Wars - this, and anti-strike/anti-trade-union legislation, is all they have left after 13 years.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Mods please remove last two vote questions - pressed send too quickly and cant finish the sentences Thanks!

They clearly want you to suffer a bit longer

Your first post was fine till you suggested HMG would use your image (which as others have explained they will have already if you have a passport) in facial recognition technology against terrorism. What on earth is wrong with that?

What you may have said is that HMG would use your photo to recognise you if participating in an 'illegal' demonstration. While I am opposed to Sue Ellen's undemocratic law changes, being recognised when doing something illegal is surely a good thing?

I understand that some people think that our government is dangerous and antidemocratic (I am of that view myself). However I have no plans to do anything dangerous or antidemocratic to oppose them (my vote should suffice). But of course if you dabble with anti 'deep state' activities, and believe in conspiracies, and intend to engage with 'stop the war' type street disruption, and don't wish to wear the standard face mask disguise, then perhaps you may regard this latest governmental wheeze as a threat.

But to me it looks like a trick to discourage the poor and downtrodden from voting. The Republicans in America have all sorts of tricks to disenfranchise the poor (especially the poor blacks) and to me this simply looks like the thin end of that sort of wedge. So on that basis I am against.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree that it is a silly scheme to try to solve something that isn't really an issue currently, but I do find it odd that you can turn up to vote and produce nothing to prove who you are. But that is the British way it seems, all rather trusting. Much more likely to get fraud with postal voting I would have thought.

But I am not sure of what civil liberties implications are of being forced to have some form of photo ID. Many countries have ID cards and it doesn't appear to be an issue. Can you open a bank account in the UK without a drivers licence or passport? I am sure it would not be straight forward without either of those. Storm in a tea cup all round I suspect.

Daily Mail readers will recall the OUTRAGE of local 'civic leaders' 'managing' the postal vote of many 'elders' of the community in recent years - also know as 'muslim labour candidates fiddling the election by taking the identity other muslims by making them hand over their postal vote in massive electoral fraud'. Some sort of proxy voting of this sort has happened in certain constituencies. Such Mail readers will be triggered into favouring this new rule.

If labour is to lose out by this it may be because a lot of the student voters won't get out of bed (metaphorically speaking) to obtain the necessary ID, judging by the level of motivation apparent among the student populace even at my 'top 5' establishment.

 

[Bozza]

Or have I misunderstood (which is quite likely - it's been a tiring day), and you don't actually think there is a need for photo ID?

I'm not sure how you could misunderstand, as I've explicitly said I'm not advocating for photo ID for voting. Look, here it is:

Please explain our difference of opinion, remembering:

1. I don't believe there is large-scale election fraud in the UK.
2. I'm not advocating for mandatory ID for voting in the UK.

As I've tried to explain numerous times, essentially I've not been talking about voting and photo ID at all on this thread. I've been talking about the difference between having high confidence in something, ie 99.999999% sure, and being absolutely certain of something, ie 100% sure.

In this case, I'll say again, I have high confidence that wide scale voting fraud does NOT exist in the UK and the UK election process has high integrity. I've said it enough times, but you seem to somehow have missed that repeatedly.

I'm sitting on the sofa right now. My dog is on the other sofa asleep. If I close my eyes and wait 30 seconds is my dog still on the other sofa? Well, I have high confidence he is, but I don't actually know that until I open my eyes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not sure how you could misunderstand, as I've literally said I'm not advocating for photo ID for voting. Look, here it is:



As I've tried to explain numerous times, I've literally not been talking about voting and photo ID at all on this thread. I've been talking about the difference between having high confidence in something, ie 99.999999% sure, and being absolutely certain of something, ie 100% sure.

In this case, I'll say again, I have high confidence that wide scale voting fraud does NOT exist in the UK and the UK election process has high integrity. I've said it enough times, but you seem to somehow have missed that repeatedly.

I'm sitting on the sofa right now. My dog is on the other sofa asleep. If I close my eyes and wait 30 seconds is my dog still on the other sofa? Well, I have high confidence he is, but I don't actually know that until I open my eyes.

You are Werner Heisenberg, and I claim my fünf Deutschmarks

 

[beorhthelm]

If labour is to lose out by this it may be because a lot of the student voters won't get out of bed (metaphorically speaking) to obtain the necessary ID, judging by the level of motivation apparent among the student populace even at my 'top 5' establishment.

given its a free ID, i exepct the student body will be eagerly getting them if they dont have other form.

 

[Bozza]

You are Werner Heisenberg, and I claim my fünf Deutschmarks

Do you KNOW I am, or is there merely sufficient evidence to strongly suggest I am?

 

[chickens]

As always, it's the sheer hypocrisy of the Tories which sickens me.

When New Labour tried to introduce ID Cards (which I opposed), the Tories screamed about civil liberties and claimed that only totalitarian regimes (like the Soviet Union and North Korea) forced citizens to carry ID Cards.

Yet somehow, the Tories now think ID Cards are wonderful and necessary.

The usual arrogant Tory attitude and double-standards - if Labour do something, it's terrible and the end of civilisation as we know it, but if we Tories do exactly the same, it immediately becomes marvellous and essential and only a traitor would oppose it.

Still, the Tories should be careful what they wish for - although it is sections of the poor, the working-class and the elderly who are most likely not to have suitable ID, these are actually the people who tend to vote Tory these days ('cos they think that anyone half a millimetre to the Left of Nigel Farage is a raving Communist), so its is actually some of the Tories' own electoral base that might end-up being disenfranchised. Now that would be hilarious!

Absolutely this. The Conservative Party may come to regret championing this, as I believe they underestimate the sheer volume of economically disadvantaged who vote for them time after time, based purely on a form of shared prejudices, regardless of how badly they’re affected economically.

I suspect the Conservatives can’t hope for better than a hung parliament at the next election, but this risks disenfranchising a significant swathe of their own voters, and to my mind hurts them as much (or more) than it hurts Labour.

 

[Scappa]

Which Tory minister's cousin is frantically registering photoids4u.com with Companies House in advance of the nice juicy contract heading their way?

 

[Audax]

My concern with this whole thing isn't requiring photo ID per se, as I'm not against requiring photo ID to vote as a principle as long as it is done right. That means obtaining said ID is a) easy and b) equally easy for everyone.

The problem I have with what the Tories are bringing in currently is that it doesn't pass both of the above tests. They've designed a system that, on the surface, looks to make it easier for the majority Tory-voting demographic (older, retired) to already have the required ID and/or obtain the ID than it is for the majority Labour-voting demographics (younger, students). Allowing 60+ travel cards to count but excluding the practically identical cards for students (as an example) simply does not pass the test for me - IMO there's no other "valid assumption" to make than that decision was driven by voter suppression. I can't see any actual valid reason for allowing a 60+ travel concession card but excluding the near-identical student versions.

 

[Zeberdi]

They clearly want you to suffer a bit longer

Your first post was fine till you suggested HMG would use your image (which as others have explained they will have already if you have a passport) in facial recognition technology against terrorism. What on earth is wrong with that?

What you may have said is that HMG would use your photo to recognise you if participating in an 'illegal' demonstration. While I am opposed to Sue Ellen's undemocratic law changes, being recognised when doing something illegal is surely a good thing?

I understand that some people think that our government is dangerous and antidemocratic (I am of that view myself). However I have no plans to do anything dangerous or antidemocratic to oppose them (my vote should suffice). But of course if you dabble with anti 'deep state' activities, and believe in conspiracies, and intend to engage with 'stop the war' type street disruption, and don't wish to wear the standard face mask disguise, then perhaps you may regard this latest governmental wheeze as a threat.

But to me it looks like a trick to discourage the poor and downtrodden from voting. The Republicans in America have all sorts of tricks to disenfranchise the poor (especially the poor blacks) and to me this simply looks like the thin end of that sort of wedge. So on that basis I am against.

I did say earlier that just because governments (around the world) already have accumulated masses of personal data on its citizens:

• that’s no excuse to accumulate more
• the argument that ‘well if you have nothing to hide’ it shouldn’t be an issue misses the point - we are all entitled to a right of privacy (in fact you could argue even more so if we have nothing to hide!).
• The big takeaway is not how governments use information on you in ‘normal’ times but how that information could be used to police and control a populace in times of perceived political crises eg citizens protesting against oppressive laws or regime.

Re. How information is used -

IDs and excessive surveillance can mean it is not only the perpetrators that end up being on a database associated with criminal activity- you could be a victim or even innocent bystander - if you have a mo’ look at some of the links posted above, this happens with a good deal of frequency in the legal justice system in countries where ID cards are compulsory.

Counter-terroism and security

I don’t have any objection to anti-terrorist/counter-intelligence agencies using technology to keep us all safer when someone’s activity triggers the need but I would draw the line when data mining is used as a fishing expedition which was Snowden’s main objection. .

Political Objections and motives

Clearly, however, and as stated above, using the introduction of PhotoID voting and registration rules as a means of voter suppression and gerrymandering the vote then the overriding issue is a political one both for me and others that have expressed reservations or certain opposition to this.

Again, if you get time, in one of the first posts I made above, I posted a link to American analysis on the impact of changing registration rules for voting in the States and how Republicans administrators are trying to use registration rules and gerrymandering to undermine the Democratic vote. My family in the States are involved in politics professionally (Democratics) and I could come up with a ton of reports and stats looking into this ( but won’t because it’s time consuming and no one will read them!)

I don’t really have much objection to ID cards in principle- however, if that’s the hidden motive, then let’s get the proposal out into the open and onto party manifestos or have a referendum on it so the public can decide. Attempting to introduce blanket wide compulsory ID cards through the back door in piecemeal fashion and using the very basic right to vote as some sort of sacrificial lamb to make it happen is not acceptable imo.

If, however, this is about undermining and depressing left wing voting behaviour which I think it it based on the lack of evidence to justify introducing PhotoID to stop fraud, (and based on the evidence of voter depression in response to American voter registration barriers) then let’s call it for what it is - yet another nail in the coffin for democratic and representative governance banged in by a Tory government that is long past its sell by date and knows it.